European Union Legislation

Lord Willoughby de Broke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the European Commission remains the appropriate body to initiate European Union legislation.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, in areas provided for under the existing treaties, the Commission initiates legislation which is then considered by member states through the Council of Ministers. Bodies other than the Commission, including the member states, the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice, may also initiate legislation in certain areas that are provided for in the treaties.
	The Government believe that the Commission plays an essential role in implementing the EU's agenda and supports its right of initiative as provided for in the treaties.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, while I am grateful for the reply given by the noble Baroness, does she recall that four years ago I asked a Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, on this subject? Her Answer was:
	"We believe that the Commission should be guided by efficiency, transparency and accountability".—[Official Report, 20/4/1999; cols. 1017–1018.]
	Is this not a triumph of optimism over reality, given that the Commission is mired, yet again, in fraud and corruption? Mr Kinnock, who was charged with cleaning out the Augean stables, seems to be part of the problem and not part of the solution. He is dealing with the responsibilities in a manner that is almost Hoon-like. Will the Government act to ensure that in future our interests will not be dealt with by a body that is so lacking in credibility?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I first say to the noble Lord that I do not recall the debate of four years ago, but I entirely accept the quotation from my noble friend Lady Symons. On the issues of efficiency, transparency and accountability, we continue to believe that it is important that the Commission demonstrates both things. We fully support the comprehensive reports the Commission is now preparing, and we think that Neil Kinnock is doing an extremely good job. Reform is crucial to modernise the Commission and to improve the way it uses taxpayers' money.
	Your Lordships may wish to know that in January of this year Neil Kinnock's review of progress on a wide-ranging human resources package showed that 87 out of 98 reform actions have already been implemented and that the remaining 11 reforms are being fine-tuned before being put into play. Noble Lords will know that we have been leading that reform effort.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with my suggestion that it is almost as ludicrous to condemn the European Union because of some illustrations of fraud as it would be to condemn free enterprise on the basis of Enron?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right: there have been irregularities in the Commission. The recent case happened in the 1990s. The current Commission has been robust in tackling this issue. An NAO report pointed to the Commission's progress in tackling fraud and in putting into place the tools which make that effective. It is important to remember that.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the directors of Enron are being prosecuted. Is that not a very good idea? Might we move towards prosecuting some members of the Commission who are still mired in corruption and fraud, despite all the excuses that the noble Baroness offered for them?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that we recognise that serious allegations will be taken through a legal process. Currently, there is an ongoing investigation. There have been three interim reports. The President of the Commission has addressed the European Parliament on this issue. It is being tackled.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that the accounts, which have been unsigned by the auditors for the past several years, are now being signed?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I understand that the Commission is putting a new financial regulation in place. The NAO noted its timetable of 1st January 2005 for introducing that. Regarding the signing-off of the accounts, my understanding is not the same as that of the noble Lord. I shall check on the point and write to him.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, perhaps I may first say how remarkably well the Leader of the House is looking, considering that she went to bed at 5 o'clock this morning and presumably had a rather short night's sleep. Will she accept the advice that many of us would like to give her that politicians should not work too hard and should make sure they get a decent night's sleep?
	I support the noble Baroness on the reform of the Commission. The European Parliament and OLAF are investigating the current status. We assure the Government that these Benches actively support their pursuance of the agenda of Commission reform. Some progress has been made but there is a good deal further to go. Can we ask Her Majesty's Government to make sure that, with the selection of the new Commission next year, the question of continuing this reform agenda is one priority which the Government wish to pursue?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. A number of noble Lords were still here in this House at 5 a.m. this morning, and I find that we are all looking remarkably fit.
	On the noble Lord's other point, the investigation is ongoing. I entirely agree with him that we need to give support to those investigations and to the reform process. We shall continue to do that.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is not the difficulty that all this ongoing investigation has been ongoing for years? In order to create a stronger enlarged Union—not to undermine it; that is absurd—we must depend upon the Commission being corruption-free and honest. Is not the difficulty that the Court of Auditors has now said that the book-keeping of the Commission is eccentric; that it fails to meet accepted accountancy standards; and that the matter is not amenable to further ongoing negotiations, but to instant action now if we want a strong Commission and a successful European Union?

Baroness Amos: First, my Lords, the European Court of Auditors bases its statement of assurance on a small sample of transactions audited in each of the main budget sectors. Errors were found in the payments sampled in other budget sectors, but commitments and revenues received a positive statement of assurance and the ECA found the Commission's accounts to be reliable, as it has done every year.
	I also remind the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that during the past 12 months a new director-general has been appointed; a new financial regulation will be in place as of 1st January 2004; annual activity reports have been introduced; and the Commission has set out detailed plans completely to recast the accounting framework. I agree that much needs to be done, but a great deal has already been done.

House of Lords: Appointment of Peers

Lord Barnett: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's Statement on constitutional reform on 18th September, an invitation has now been made to the non-statutory Appointments Commission to make recommendations for new non-party Peers; and, if so, what number, if any, was suggested.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Prime Minister has invited the interim Appointments Commission to recommend a small number of non-party political Peers.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, it was a strange statement by the Lord Chancellor at the time to suggest that some more Cross-Bench, independent Peers should be appointed. Does my noble friend accept that at the recent count we already have 179 Cross-Bench and independent Peers, plus another seven "Others", as they are called? Some of them are excellent; some of them even sit here on my Bench.
	However—as I always want to try to help the Government—would it not be more sensible and helpful to getting business through the House if the Government considered announcing now that those hereditary Peers who are proposed to be removed were—all who wished—offered life peerages in advance, so that we could proceed with our normal business?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his spirit of helpfulness. As he knows, there is a commitment in our published proposals to the retention of a strong independent element in this House. I can only echo the words of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, when he commented on the hereditary Peers:
	"I hope that we shall continue to benefit from the contribution of at least some of them, should they be nominated as life Peers in the future".—[Official Report, 18/09/03; col. 1058.]
	That remains the position.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, until 18th September, it was government policy that the party of government and the main party of opposition should, in relative terms of strength, be in broad parity. Since 18th September, that position has changed and the Labour Party now says that it should have a majority over the other political parties. Is that another sign of the Government breaking an undertaking?

Baroness Amos: No, my Lords. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would like to read again what we said. We said that no one party should have an overall majority. That remains the position, but there are a number of proposals for considering the percentage of votes cast in an election and asking the statutory Appointments Commission, once it has been established, to determine the number of Peers across the House on a party political basis as well as with respect to the Cross Benches.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Leader of the House confirm that it remains the Government's position that they will base the appointment of new political Peers on the share of the electorate at the previous election, which affects the main party of opposition and the effective party of opposition alike?
	Secondly, will the Appointments Commission, some of whose members were appointed by virtue of having been outstanding contributors to this House, ensure that all those appointed are informed that they can make a contribution beyond their own expertise to the work of the House? That would be extremely welcome.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the second point made by the noble Baroness. On her first point, she will be aware that a consultation document is out. The Government's position has always been that we should consider the percentage of the vote, but we have also asked in the consultation document whether we should consider the percentage of seats that parties hold in the other place.

Lord Peston: My Lords, while echoing the views of my noble friend Lord Barnett on converting the remaining hereditaries into life Peers, which is a matter that we can debate when we receive the Bill, can my noble friend explain why the commission is the body being used to make those appointments? If your Lordships' House has a future—and I hope that it does—it will be as a working House. With one obvious exception, the members of the commission who are Peers seem not to take part in the workings of the House; they seem to have no knowledge of the hard slog—of last night, for example. Where Peers are involved, would it not be better if the appointments were made by Peers who are committed to this House and do its work?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we currently have an Appointments Commission. Those on the commission were reappointed in July. The Government have proposed that we move to a statutory appointments commission. My noble friend's point about the knowledge that members of that commission should have will be taken into account when we move to that process.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, will the Minister reassure us that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the chairman of the commission, has rid himself of his prejudice against considering hairdressers? I declare an interest: my father was a hairdresser.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I was not aware that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, had a prejudice against any particular group. It is gratifying to know that the noble Lord's father was a hairdresser.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, while I greatly welcome the Government's indication that hereditary Peers who sit in the House may well return as life Peers—that is within a party's gift—has the noble Baroness any suggestion about how hereditary Peers who sit on these Benches may find their way back as life Peers after the removal of the 92?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble and learned friend made it clear in the Statement that, when time allowed, we would move towards some kind of legislation. As part of the process of taking that legislation through, I have no doubt that such issues will be discussed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, rather than fiddling around, as the Government are doing, with a hybrid system, would it not be better if they now decided that it was right to have a fully elected House of Lords and pursued that as a policy item?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that there is a difference of opinion between this House and the other place. We intend to move to the next stage, which involves a fully appointed Chamber.

General Practitioners: Performance Tables

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they favour the recording and publication of tables of general practitioners' performance in their work in the medical profession.

Lord Warner: My Lords, after 1st January 2005, the Freedom of Information Act will provide the public with a general right of access to information held by public authorities, including the information held by primary care trusts relating to the work of GPs. We will consult key stakeholders, including the British Medical Association, about the arrangements for doing that to ensure that the rights of patients and practitioners under the Data Protection Act are safeguarded.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. While performance tables are being compiled in some areas, does he agree that although such tables promote friendly competition, they do not everywhere provide choice for patients because there is a national shortage of general practitioners?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there may be a misunderstanding. The issue arises out of the arrangements under the new contract in relation to a quality and outcomes framework, which was agreed by the profession—the profession wanted it. That will show how well GPs are treating patients with 10 common chronic illnesses. It is a method of paying GPs, not for compiling league tables.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in all the publicity, contrary to what the Minister said, the official tables show that GP vacancies are up by 800 this year and that total GP vacancies are now at 3,500. Is it not grossly misleading for the Government to give the public the impression that they can judge quality in a GP when they cannot even get access to one?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord has been joining us in our midnight—and later—activities on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. He will know that that Bill will implement a number of major improvements, which have been agreed by the profession. They will provide an even higher quality of primary care service than we currently have.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, can the Minister offer any explanation of the fact that GP vacancies are up by one-third to, I believe, 3,435 and that deprived urban areas are particularly badly affected?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I did not think that this Question was about deprived areas and GP practices. We are addressing the problems around GP supply. There has been an increase in the number of GPs under this Government. There are some longstanding problems in particular areas and the new contract will improve the quality of primary care widely across the country.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, if details of GP performance are recorded and published as tables, how can we be reassured that they contain an accurate reflection of performance rather than a view of patient health, which varies enormously across the country and which is intrinsically linked to patient poverty?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right—any information about performance by any health professional does not necessarily indicate that the health of the general population in that area is improving; wider issues, apart from healthcare, affect the population's health in any particular area.

Earl Howe: My Lords, was the specific idea of GP league tables discussed with GP representative bodies prior to the Government's announcement?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I must try to nail this issue. The idea is getting abroad because there is a proposal, which has been agreed by the profession in the new contract, for a quality and outcomes framework, which will enable GPs to be paid on the basis of the quality of the services that they provide. Incidentally that information will tell one something about the point score under the framework that a particular GP attained in order to get the payment that he deserves as a result of that work. We are merely saying that under the Freedom of Information Act, it is possible that that information could be available to the public. They will have that right under the Freedom of Information Act after 1st January 2005. We will be discussing with the BMA how that information might be made available publicly while safeguarding the rights of practitioners and patients under the Data Protection Act.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, at a time when, as several noble Lords have said, there is a national shortage of general practitioners and when, in the next two years, all doctors will have to cope with a programme of professional appraisal under the rules that are being introduced by the General Medical Council, will the Minister see to it that the process will not be too administratively burdensome on general practitioners?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a perfectly fair point. I remind the House that the contract was agreed by the BMA and that, in a ballot of GPs and with a turnout of 70 per cent, 79 per cent voted to accept the contract. The Government are not forcing a contract on GPs; the Government and the NHS Confederation are working with the profession to agree a new contract. From what I have said, I am sure that it is clear that we will exercise care in relation to the way in which information is made available under the Freedom of Information Act.

State Visits to the United Kingdom

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will try to ensure that in future any head of state making a state visit to the United Kingdom has an invitation to address both Houses of Parliament.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, each state visit is different and the programme put together is individually tailored to the guest. It is therefore not possible to give an assurance that on all future state visits, visiting heads of state will be invited to address both Houses of Parliament.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, do the Government believe that it is a good thing for visiting statesmen and the Parliaments of the countries that they are visiting to meet each other? I refer, for example, to the highly successful meeting that our Prime Minister had with the American Congress. Does the Minister recollect that we had a very useful and enlightening address when President Yeltsin came here? We had another when President Clinton came here. Does she share my regret that we did not have the opportunity of hearing from President Putin when he came on 23rd and 24th June, when Parliament was sitting? Can she perhaps ask whether President Bush, when he is here from 19th to 21st November, might fit in a visit to Parliament on the morning of Thursday 20th?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that not all state visits result in an address to both Houses of Parliament. He will know that on average we have two state visits a year. The last state visit to result in an address to both Houses of Parliament was the state visit of Nelson Mandela in 1996. I am sure that there will be an opportunity for Members of Parliament to meet President Bush during his programme, but I have to say that the programme has not yet been finalised. It is always good for politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to talk to each other.

Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under this plan both Houses of Parliament would have had the privilege of being addressed by President Ceausescu of Romania and President Mugabe of Zimbabwe? Would it not be better to leave well alone?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bowling that one. I can only repeat my Answer to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Every state visit is different. It is up to the governments of both countries and Buckingham Palace to make a decision about the programme.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, leaving, if I may, President Ceausescu on one side for the moment, does not my noble friend Lord Marlesford have a serious point? Do not noble Lords remember the addresses to both Houses of Parliament by President Mitterand, President Clinton and particularly that by Nelson Mandela? In my memory, those were great parliamentary occasions. I very much hope therefore that the Minister will put the efforts of the Government into ensuring that there are more addresses to both Houses of Parliament. If that does not happen, I fear a further dumbing down of Parliament, something to which I think this Government are all too readily prone.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's views, now that they are in Hansard, will be looked at carefully by the Government.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when President Chirac came to the House he was reminded by the Lord Chancellor in the Royal Gallery of all our former historical associations with France? We should be delighted to show our former historical associations to the President of the United States of America when he comes.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are delighted that President Bush is coming as I am sure is the whole country. During his visit we will discuss with him bilateral relations with America in terms of trade and investment. For example, as a result of US investment into the United Kingdom in 2002–03, 35,000 new jobs were created. There are a great many positive issues to discuss.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, would not some of these people be extremely boring?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, Parliament has had the joy of listening to many international politicians over the years; some more exciting than others.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that such invitations have been customary if Parliament has been sitting at the time but, that there are so many sovereign states in the world now—more than 200—that the practice may no longer be possible in all cases?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. It is not standard practice for that very reason.

Lord Carter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on the occasion of the visit of President Clinton a large amount of electronic equipment was installed in the passageway at the back of the Royal Gallery? When I asked what it was for I was told that it was to keep President Clinton in touch with the Pentagon, so that presumably he could launch World War Three if he felt so inclined. When I said that I found that impressive the American gentleman involved said that it was, but that the only contact he had been able to make was with Westminster Tube Station.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as always, I am fascinated by my noble friend's information.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, many people in this country will be disappointed by the Minister's response. We have a special relationship with the United States and we saw with pleasure our Prime Minister addressing Congress a few weeks ago. It seems a great tragedy that we are not giving President Bush a chance to speak to Parliament and it seems to be only because the Labour Party is afraid of its Members not turning up.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord would expect, I have to disagree with him. We have an important relationship with our friends in the United States. That relationship will be well on display during this important visit.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, we kindly arranged, I recall, for President Chirac to give a speech to both Houses in between a picture of the Battle of Waterloo and the Battle of Trafalgar. Is it possible for the Government to ensure that there could be a picture somewhere of the burning of the White House in 1812 before President Bush comes to speak?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, very good.

National Grid: Security of Supply

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they agree with the view recently expressed by the National Grid that it would like a bigger electricity safety cushion to manage exceptional circumstances.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, in its report on winter operations published last week, National Grid Transco said that it would like a bigger "safety cushion" if the most onerous conditions occur together. Since the report was published, the "safety cushion" has grown as generators have returned mothballed plant and are making plans to return more. Ofgem is now working with NGT on measures to improve still further the way the market can best deliver security of supply.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it not a fact that even with the mothballed plant that has been returned to service there is still a lower reserve of electricity generating capacity than in recent years? Does that not support the view of the National Grid that in exceptional circumstances there could be difficulties? In those circumstances, does the noble Lord agree that special measures should be introduced to stimulate the generating companies to hold a greater reserve than they otherwise might do under normal commercial considerations?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the target has been between 15 and 20 per cent. As a result of decisions taken by companies in the past few months, the figure has already moved up to 18 per cent. If, as announced on 15th October, the PowerGen 650 megawatt unit at Grain comes on stream the margin would exceed 19 per cent. That is within the range of security.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that on 8th October he gave those figures in answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Peyton? The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, then asked the noble Lord to distinguish between capacity margin and available capacity margin. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, did not respond to that question by stating which margin the Government are using—what is actually available or some kind of hypothetical figure.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the margin we have been identifying is the one common to all in terms of the figure of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent capacity. That margin has been moving up quite steadily as a result of the increase in prices available to the companies and the indication that extra resources need to be made available. We are moving towards the upper end of the target of security. When the NGT announced that it would like a more secure cushion, it was predicating that against the most extreme conditions that could obtain in the winter. That would require three distinct factors to come together before the system came under undue strain.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord has done his best with the material provided for him by the—I shall not repeat what I said about it the other day—Department of Trade and Industry. I wonder whether the noble Lord could stir the department into a burgeoning suspicion of whether it has got things wrong and is being a little complacent. I am not accusing the noble Lord of that. I am thinking that it is a habit of mind of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not believe that that charge holds water. As soon as difficulties have occurred with transmission on the grid, the department has moved quickly into action with a full investigation into what has gone wrong. For example, the recent incident which caused considerable misery to people in the Birmingham area as regards New Street and parts of the city turned out to be a problem which involved a fraction of a second during transmission. As yet, we do not know the reasons for it. It has nothing to do with under-investment or the adequacy of supply. It was a technical fault which needs to be examined. I and my officials are not in a position to give precise answers as to why that incident occurred until the full inquiry has been carried out.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the capacity to which the Minister referred include the Norwick pump storage system, which can deliver 2,000 megawatts in 12 minutes, if it is still working? Is it still going to be valid in 10 years' time or so when the nuclear programme is allowed to run down and when we seem to be relying on the Government's policy on wind farms to fill the gap? Will they really be able to do that?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is not the case that the Government are relying on wind farms to fill the gap created by the nuclear programme in 2010. As regards wind farms and all renewables, the target is only 10 per cent. It is clear that we shall need to generate and purchase electricity from other sources. That is why quite significant contracts have been entered into for overseas supply of electricity to this country.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not being complacent. I speak as someone who has worked in a power station. The 18 per cent margin is the very lowest there should be. Is the noble Lord aware that, since we have not had any very hard winters, maximum demand has not been tested? Therefore, will the noble Lord look further at the figures he has been given? If there is an abnormal winter and abnormal plant outage, I fear that we shall have very severe power cuts in parts of the country.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I recognise the fact that the noble Lord has the advantage of having worked in the industry, albeit a little while back and things have changed quite significantly. I believe that the noble Lord would claim at best old Labour and probably further back than that. As regards the question, the noble Lord is right in that we have been fortunate in having had relatively mild winters in recent years. But I assure him that the capacity can easily and readily cope with the problems of a colder winter. It would require a number of quite significant factors to come into play before the available margin would cause any real anxiety. The noble Lord said that it was at the lower end of the range, but it is not. The published position was to aim for a target between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. As I have emphasised to the House today, we are moving towards the upper range of capacity.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that he has not answered the question put by my noble friend Lord Jenkin? It went to the heart of the problem. Will the noble Lord leave a letter in the Library, at his convenience, so that we may have the answer?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am happy to do that, although it is a confession of failure on my part if it is thought a letter is necessary to clarify the answers which have been given. The noble Lord has made his point. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was fairly emphatic on the matter. A letter will be deposited in the Library.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, if the underlying anxiety that exists on this issue is a result of the fact that we are increasingly having to rely on sources of supply which are less secure such as imported gas, which unlike oil and coal, cannot be stored, and 10 per cent wind power, what happens if there is a large anticyclone over the country and there is no wind? There are also ageing nuclear plants, which are more likely to break down. When they do, we have discovered that, over the years, that tends to be for longer. Is that not a reason why the historic target of l5 per cent to 20 per cent may need to be made even higher?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate has a point in that we are having to change the basis of the supply of electricity generation. It is the case that we shall import more in future. We hold that situation in common with the rest of Europe, where there is no self-sufficiency in any of the advanced economies. If it is indicated that we are not entirely self-sufficient in energy supply, largely because of the running down of the natural gas fields and so forth, it is a situation we share with others. It is an aspect which we have to take into account with the rest of Europe.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, is it not a fact that we can store gas? There is ample space under the North Sea. All that is needed is the will to do it.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is true that the technical problems are being overcome and that it can be done. We will need to do it. I am grateful to my noble friend for putting forward a more optimistic perspective on the country's future with regard to energy than that put forward in several of the contributions today.

Business of the House: 23rd and 27th October

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a short Statement about future business. As the House will know, the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill was left unfinished this morning. The intention is that it will be resumed on Thursday morning. That means that the Report stage of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill will then follow whenever the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill is completed. The Report stage of the European Union (Accessions) Bill is rescheduled to next Monday, first business.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for making that brief Statement and doing it so speedily at the first available opportunity so that everyone can rearrange their diaries. We all appreciate the trouble the Government have got themselves into on the timing of legislation and that is another reason to welcome this announcement.
	It is worth reiterating that we accept that the Government have the right to secure their business, but last night we sat until five o'clock in the morning, which was seven hours beyond the recommended cut-off of 10 o'clock in the evening. In all conscience we should not have allowed that to happen. I know that the noble Lord agrees that the current problems do not result from actions in your Lordships' House, which is simply doing its job. That is what it is for and that is what it must do. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise the co-operation he has had from the usual channels in what has been an unusually busy Session. After all, good will is a valuable parliamentary commodity never wisely lost.
	I hope that both the Government Chief Whip and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House can be assured of our support if they take a much firmer line with departments and business managers in another place to ensure that such a bottleneck of major and controversial legislation does not arise next Session. We cannot continue to sit at five o'clock in the morning.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, welcome the brief Statement from the Government Chief Whip and say in particular that we appreciate that he has done his best to try to meet the problems which the House confronts. I remind him and the House that those problems do not arise only under one government: governments of both parties have consistently found themselves trying to get through more legislation than this House can handle.
	Having said that, it is the case that many, many Peers are now being kept for extraordinarily long hours which the 10 o'clock rule suggested would not happen. It is also worth reminding the House that members of our staff, who often have to be here within a few hours of the moment at which the work of the House ceases, are carrying a huge burden night after night as well as those Peers who are trying to help with legislation.
	There is one new factor: as the Commons now timetables all the Bills that pass through it, far more legislation comes to this House without having been fully debated in the other Chamber. The House is therefore faced with the dilemma of whether to undertake the job of thorough scrutiny, which it believes to be its main purpose in life, or to abandon that job in the interests of maintaining reasonable hours. The House should not be faced with that dilemma.
	I wish to raise two matters that the Chief Whip might consider. The 10 o'clock rule may not be as effective as trying to reach a particular amendment. It tends to make people feel that they can continue for longer than they might otherwise. Secondly, will he consider closer liaison with his colleagues in the other House so that the allocation of Bills between the two Chambers, and the whole weight of government legislation, could be considered to the benefit of both Houses at a very early stage—that is to say, very shortly before the new Session begins, rather than at the end of the old Session, when we are dealing with an almost impossible load of legislation?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am pleased to say that I agree wholeheartedly with many of the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. I repeat on the record and with feeling that I am passionately in favour of this House sitting at sensible hours. It does not aid the Government, the scrutiny of legislation or, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the unfailing goodwill and support of the people who serve us so faithfully in the House. We must bear in mind their interests as well.
	I welcome warmly the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Government have the right to have their legislation considered—I would expect no less from him. We should remind ourselves that this is a revising Chamber; it does not exercise a veto over government legislation, as I think we all agree. I am sure that all of it will be properly considered.
	It is within the power of this House to find the remedy to our problems, which is relatively simple: to find a proper balance between work done on the Floor of the House and that carried out in Committee. We have not yet found that balance in working practices. Floor time is precious; it should be used for major debates and the consideration of major parts of government legislation. It is far more appropriate that detailed consideration take place in Committee.
	If humanly possible, I avoid the ritual of abuse between the two Houses that can develop sometimes. It is not helpful from either side. Although the House of Commons timetables its legislation, I venture to suggest that, even should the Official Opposition came into government after the next election—I fervently hope that that will not happen—I would look forward to seeing them abolish the timetabling system. I would be extraordinarily surprised if they did that. Despite the timetabling in the House of Commons, it spends far more time considering legislation in detail precisely because it goes to a committee. If we did that here, we would consider legislation much more effectively, finish at a sensible time and have sensible Recesses.
	I thank fervently the 47 Peers who were present at 4.15 this morning—eight from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches and a splendid 39 from the Labour Benches, to whom I express special thanks.

Sustainable Energy Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Hunting Bill

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 [Hunting wild mammals with dogs]:

Baroness Mallalieu: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 4, after "he" insert "intentionally"

Baroness Mallalieu: Perhaps I might explain briefly the purpose of this amendment and the others that will follow during the Committee stage in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew, Lord Donoughue, Lord Mancroft and others, to which I have added my name.
	As the Committee will know, the Minister in another place who was charged with grasping the nettle that the issue of hunting has become for the Government promised to consult widely, to take evidence from all sides and to produce a hunting Bill that would be,
	"based on principle and evidence".
	The Prime Minister, too, gave that undertaking. On the basis that the issue would be dealt with fairly, the rural community co-operated to the full with the Minister.
	The Minister used as a basis for his consultation exercise the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which the then Home Secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw, had ordered "to inform the debate". On 12th March 2001, after publishing his report, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said:
	"Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel . . . The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty".—[Official Report, 12/3/01; col. 533.]
	Significantly, the Burns report also raised the possibility of licensing, which was beyond its terms of remit. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, said during the later hearings at Portcullis House,
	"the bulk of the concerns the Burns Report raised about hunting might be addressed through licensing, a regulatory approach or by changing the rules of the hunts".
	I know that each of the concerns that the noble Lord raised was dealt with and has specifically been remedied, in so far as it was possible, by the hunts themselves.
	In September 2002, the Minister chaired three days of hearings in Portcullis House, with representatives from the Countryside Alliance, of which I am president, the then named Deadline 2000 and the Middle Way Group. Each of them questioned expert independent witnesses who gave evidence. I sat through every minute of those three days. At no point during the six-month consultation process, the evidence of which was helpfully placed by the Minister on the website, or during those hearings, was any evidence presented to justify an outright ban on any form of hunting.
	There were, however, three major points of consensus among the experts on all sides during those hearings. The first was that the populations of quarry species would continue to be controlled whether or not hunting was banned. Secondly, the animal welfare experts on all sides agreed with the findings of the Burns report that suffering would occur from alternative control methods and that those often unaccountable methods would necessarily increase in the event of a ban. Thirdly, it was agreed that all species should be given parity of treatment.
	In the Queen's Speech last November, the Government promised that,
	"A Bill will be introduced to enable Parliament"—
	I stress that the word was "Parliament"—
	"to reach a conclusion",
	on this issue.—[Official Report, 13/11/03; col.3]
	The Bill originally presented by the Govt, as your Lordships will know, established a regulatory regime—a registrar who would deal with licensing applications and grant them according to specific criteria. It created three categories of hunting, despite the consensus that had been indicated at Portcullis House: the first related to hunting to be banned outright—that is, deer hunting and coursing. I stress that that was despite evidence to the contrary. Secondly, there was to be exempt hunting, which included ratting, rabbiting and flushing-out for shooting; thirdly, came all other forms of hunting—which had to be registered. In order to be registered, hunting had to pass two tests: first, of utility and, secondly, of least suffering. In some important respects, the Bill did not match the evidence and in some respects the tests that were to be applied were drawn in such a way as to exclude a fair consideration of the application by the registrar.
	However, that said, those defects could have been remedied by careful examination and amendment of the Bill as it passed through Parliament. The essential structure provided by that Bill—a regulatory system for hunting and a framework against which the registrar could consider applications—was, I believe, sensible and with relatively few amendments could have been made into one which was workable, which would have been seen to be fair on all reasonable sides and would, I believe, have had the respect and support of the rural communities to which it would apply.
	The public as a whole could have had confidence that hunting was being properly conducted according to recognised and approved codes of practice and that any breach would result in deregulation and the loss of the ability to hunt in future. Moreover, because registrations were required to be renewed, the registrar would have been able to keep under review changing circumstances in different areas and developments in alternative methods in research and in scientific progress.
	As the Committee knows, that Bill was seriously undermined in its Standing Committee stages in another place and in July this year, in Mr Michael's own words, it was "wrecked" at Report stage when the provision was turned into a total ban. All references to the hunting register and the tribunal system in that original Bill were stripped from the Bill in a subsequent Standing Committee hearing, and the Bill that we now have received a Third Reading in another place, supported by fewer than half the 659 Members of Parliament.
	The purpose of my amendments is to restore to the Bill a fair and workable registration system as envisaged by the Government and, indeed, as promised by them. Many of the amendments—indeed, most of them—will restore word for word those of the original Bill. In some respects, there are changes—and where there are changes, they will be clearly identified so that your Lordships can understand what they are and why they are suggested.
	The role of this House must surely be both to seek to improve a Bill and, in this case, to try to ensure that the Government's promise of a fair Bill that is based on the evidence can be kept.
	Amendment No. 1 seeks to insert the word "intentionally" into the first line of the Bill, so that it would read,
	"A person commits an offence if he intentionally hunts a wild mammal with a dog".
	That is a short but important addition to the original Bill. I believe that it is necessary and that the Committee should accept it. Perhaps I may briefly explain why.
	Rather extraordinarily, there is no satisfactory definition of "hunting" in the Bill that has been sent to us. The interpretation provisions in Part 3, Clause 11(2) state:
	"For the purposes of this Act a reference to a person hunting a wild mammal with a dog includes, in particular, any case where—
	(a) a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal, and
	(b) one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction)".
	The definition is not exhaustive; it lacks clarity and there is no indication whatsoever either there or elsewhere in the Bill of what participation may be required to render the accused guilty of what is to become a criminal offence. The amendment provides a clear requirement for the prosecution before conviction to prove specific intent on the part of the person who is accused.
	My concerns about the inadequacy of the definition were shared even by supporters of a ban on the Standing Committee in another place. During a debate on this topic, Mr Rob Marris, a lawyer who worked closely with the Minister, urged him to consider the interpretation of that clause very carefully, saying:
	"I do not think that hunting is sufficiently well defined at present".
	No change was made; and I echo the words of my friend Mr Marris.
	Without a requirement that there be a specific intention on the part of the accused, this Bill will create a nightmare for the police and the courts and a field-day for the lawyers. It would presumably be necessary for the courts to develop a definition which relied upon degrees of risk and foresight which, in the context of the activity of hunting, would be extremely difficult. Would someone, for example, who released their dog in a public park, knowing that there were foxes in the vicinity—most of us know that there are foxes in every park in this city—and knowing that that dog had a propensity to give chase, fall foul of this legislation? On the face of it, it seems that he would. At present, there is no requirement on the part of the prosecution to prove a specific intent to hunt, let alone to cause any suffering or to kill.
	So, if, for example, an individual acting and believing he was acting in the best interests of an animal by seeking to relieve unnecessary suffering acted in the following way, he might well be considered criminal. Let us take as an example a motorist who hits a fox or a deer and then uses the dog in his car to try to find the injured animal speedily in adjacent woodland or undergrowth. He would appear to be committing an offence under this Bill unless he actually owned the land or first went and found out who was the owner and got his permission; or went first to the police and got their authority. So much for relieving animal suffering as quickly as possible.
	Legislation which creates a new criminal offence, as this legislation does, must surely make it clear to everyone when, how and by whom an offence is committed. What is totally unclear from the Bill sent to us by the House of Commons is who essentially is to be criminalised. On a standard day's hunting with a pack of hounds, they are under the control of one person—the huntsman—with possibly one or two assistants acting as whippers-in. The mounted field is there, following and watching the hounds. In addition to the mounted field, there will in many cases be a very large number of people following in cars, on motorbikes, bicycles, on foot or on quadbikes.
	On 4th February 2003, during the Committee stage in another place, Mr Michael said:
	"Hunt followers who merely observe the progress of the hunters or follow at some distance without themselves engaging in the pursuit of a wild mammal being hunted are not hunting and are not covered by the offence".
	That presumably means that followers, whether they are on horses, in cars, on foot or on all those types of bike, who merely watch and follow, will not face prosecution. I should like to hear the Minister confirm that that is so. I have a particular interest in that last Saturday, when I would have said that I went out hunting, despite my best efforts I was not within a quarter of a mile of any hounds doing any hunting for the whole of the day after the meet. Would I have been a criminal?
	The Bill contains no definition of participation in hunting, following a hunt or even being a spectator at a hunt. However, the Bill as it stands makes certain circumstances an offence, which cannot possibly have been intended. Some people may take part in a drag hunt so beloved of supporters of a ban. The hounds set out a drag line but then, without any intention on the part of those in control, "go live" when hounds start to follow the scent of a wild mammal. That is not something that is unheard of: it happens frequently. As the Bill is currently drafted, such people would appear to be committing a criminal offence.
	Is an offence committed when hounds go out and no fox, deer or hare is found? A blank day is not uncommon. It might be said that the huntsman was attempting to hunt, but that raises questions that are more suited to the Bar finals examination about whether any offence is committed by attempting to do the impossible, even though no mammal will ever have been found let alone chased or killed.
	Is it an offence when, as happens so often, hounds follow the scent in the wrong direction, not chasing the wild animal but in fact running away from it? I hope that some of those questions will be answered by the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, that is grouped with this one. I have opted for simplicity. Amendment No. 1 simply inserts the single word "intentionally" and I hope that the Minister will feel that he can accept it. I am encouraged to hope that he will do so in the light of what Mr Alun Michael said in Committee in another place on 4th February 2003. He said:
	"The intentions or actions of the hunter determine what is going on. Hunting has an ordinary English meaning . . . Without that intent, a person is not hunting and is not covered by the offence in clause 1".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 4/02/03; col.735.]
	If that is still the Government's view, let us make it plain in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I wish to propose Amendment No. 2, but will first comment briefly on Amendment No. 1. The expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, became very evident in her speech and I have no wish to repeat what she said, but merely to add to her final statement. The Minister, Mr Alun Michael, when discussing the word intention, which is the nature of Amendment No. 1, said that the intention was to pursue a wild mammal. That was his description originally on 4th February. The definitions were spelled out by the Minister on that occasion during the Committee stage of the Hunting Bill. However, such definitions do not appear in the Bill as presently constituted. In other words, there are no definitions of intention in the Bill. That is a very serious matter indeed.
	We should surely ask, "Why not?" when we question how this state of affairs has arisen. Surely the Bill should spell out the intention and the different functions that are taking place. It is not specific in relation to accountability, to which the noble Baroness referred. As the Bill stands, an offence would be committed if a drag hunt sets off on the drag line but the hounds start to follow the scent of a wild mammal—even if the mammal is not present in the area. Surely it should be exempt because the hounds are not intentionally hunting a wild mammal.
	Without this amendment, the courts would have to develop a definition that relied upon degrees of risk and foresight in the context of the activity of hunting. Inevitably, such definitions in court would be subjective and not objective because the definitions are not spelled out in the legislation. These are serious matters because criminality would be defined by the court without such a definition coming forward.
	Amendment No. 2 tries to define what occurs during a hunt. In line 4, it would leave out from the word "he" to the end of the line and insert,
	"expressly encourages a dog to hunt a wild mammal that can be shown to be present, unless his hunting is registered or exempt".
	That means that an offence would be committed only if the dog or dogs were not registered to hunt or were not exempt and were being encouraged to hunt without those specific conditions.
	I will address two major points: the nature of hunting and the processes that occur in hunting, which are very important. The amendment addresses the lack of definitions for what is undoubtedly a complex activity. For example, in exempt hunting specified in Schedule 1, there is reference to flushing a wild mammal out of cover. That is common parlance in shooting and is something that also occurs in hunting. There is no actual description of "cover". Is it woodland or just long grass? Sometimes a fox will run out into the open from an area of scrub and then back again and so on. When does a flush become a hunt? The lack of proper definitions in the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 has contributed to the complete shambles north of the Border regarding hunting with dogs. The Scottish Parliament has not banned hunting. It has simply changed the way in which the practice is undertaken. Foxes are still chased, but are now shot as well and in greater numbers. One wonders where the animal welfare benefit lies in that ill thought-out legislation.
	Definitions were included in the Anti-hunting Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Michael Foster MP in 1997, but were poorly drafted and found so difficult to improve that they were subsequently dropped. However, if good legislation—and I mean good legislation—is to reach the statute book, that law must be clear to everyone. It is the dog that hunts, not the human. Dogs will naturally hunt whether a human is present or not. If a dog owner or keeper knows that dogs have a propensity to hunt yet does not wish to do so, what happens if the dog is released from its lead? Clearly, such an action on the part of the owner is intentional. The amendment makes it clear that the prosecution would have to show that the owner "expressly encouraged" the dog to hunt.
	The offence in Clause 1 is to hunt a wild mammal with a dog, but what if a wild mammal is not present? For example, one cannot be accused of stealing a car if that car does not exist. Of course, there will be the accusation of intent, but that raises further difficulties. Indeed, I mentioned the example of a drag hunt earlier. A hunt is made up of several sections. The first is when the dogs cast around for a scent. The second is when the dogs have found the scent and follow it. At this point the quarry species probably does not know that it is being hunted. The third part is when the quarry is viewed by the dogs and a sighted chase takes place. The final part is either the quarry escaping or being caught and killed. The question must be, if the intention of those hunting is not clear, at what point will an offence take place? Only when a quarry is sighted? If so, there will be lots of police officers spending a long time following hunts.
	Sometimes, however, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, the dogs will find a scent line but go the wrong way. When that happens the line is called the "heel" line, whereas the direction in which the animal is going is known as the "toe" line. So it is possible that those hunting with dogs are going in exactly the opposite direction.
	I should like to make a number of other short points. In the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House on 16th September 2003, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
	"Cruelty is justifiable only if the alternative is worse cruelty or there is no alternative in achieving the utilitarian objective".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 892.]
	Scientific evidence now exists to show that shooting, the main alternative to hunting, may in certain circumstances result in much higher wounding rates than previously claimed. There is no scientific study other than the flawed study of foxes taken to wildlife hospitals to counter that new evidence. It is the case, therefore, that a simple ban on hunting with dogs will actually make animal welfare worse. It is important to note that evidence.
	Comparisons of hunting with dogs and the so-called baiting sports are totally wrong. I am sure that some of those issues will be raised later in the debate. Such comparisons are wrong for two reasons. First, the animal being baited is held captive by one means or another. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, no alternatives to baiting were proposed. The hunting debate has been flawed from the very start in that it has concentrated solely on just one method of control while ignoring the other methods regardless of how much suffering they cause. The Bill sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 is the right way in which to approach the issue. That legislation will give all wild mammals protection from undue suffering in any activity.
	I hope that I have clearly spelt out the importance of Amendment No. 2.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I will certainly oppose Amendment No. 1, not least because it is the opening shot which we shall hear reverberate round this Chamber both today and in future debates. It attempts not to revise this legislation but to disembowel a Bill which has come to us from another place. Great play has been made of the function of this House, which I respect. Our function is to examine, to alter and to ask the other House to think again. However, devoid of the rhetoric behind the decision in the other place, the plain fact is that Clause 1 states:
	"A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless his hunting is exempt".
	I have waited all my life to see legislation with those words in it. I understand the feeling of Members on all sides of the Committee who do not wish to accept that provision, but it has come to us from the other place.
	When I look through the range of amendments, which have been put together strategically and cohesively, it is clear that Amendment No. 1 is intended to lead the onslaught on the integrity of legislation sent to us from the Commons. I realise that that may be to the liking of a great many noble Lords. Because of the arithmetic, I cannot believe that the proposed amendments will not succeed in this Chamber. However, if we send the Bill back to the other place with the proposed amendments, we know the situation in which we will be placed. This argument is not about the issues; it is an argument between the Houses.
	I shall not speak very often or for very long in these debates. Those who are perturbed about the time taken up on the Bill may be assured that I will be their ally on this amendment and on others. As a former Member of the Commons, however, it sticks in my craw that the decisions of the other place are being treated so casually by those who want hunting to continue. The issue has not changed. Are you in favour of training one animal, a dog, to hunt another animal, not for food, but for pleasure or leisure or sport or whatever you like to call it? I am against it. Amendment No. 1 is the beginning of the wedge. I oppose this amendment and perhaps every other one that hangs with it.

Lord Crickhowell: I had thought that this was the one amendment on which those in favour of a ban on hunting could join in support with those against a ban on hunting. If the noble Lord who has just spoken had made that speech on the next set of amendments I could have understood what he was about. Here, however, we are simply dealing with the question of the definition of what constitutes hunting. I should have thought that anyone who drafts legislation would want to ensure that they do not have to rely simply on statements made by Ministers during a Committee stage for such a definition. I should like to give two very simple examples of the problems that are likely to arise.
	I very regularly exercise my younger daughter's dog, a charming, delightful whippet. Confronted with sheep, it behaves impeccably. Confronted with any farm animal, it does not consider chasing it. Unfortunately, however, it is not a lawyer. As the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, pointed out, it is dogs that hunt, not humans. The fact is that Sterling—for that is the dog's name—behaving impeccably when it meets a sheep on the Black Mountains, but shortly afterwards sensing that there may be a squirrel, possibly a rabbit or better still a hare in the bracken, becomes almost uncontrollable.
	I know that Sterling is inclined to chase those animals. He usually makes a bit of a fool of himself, but off he goes. I suppose it could be argued, as the Bill is drafted, that if I do not keep him on a lead the whole time, I am hunting, because I know that he is likely to go off after the animal. The fact that I walk beside him saying, "Now, Sterling, don't you think about it; behave yourself", would not, I suspect, be a very convincing defence if I happened to be spotted chasing the animal which was in full pursuit of a hare, although it is very difficult in deep bracken to know what it is pursuing.
	So I suspect that, without a definition, the ordinary dog owner out exercising their dog in the park—as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested, although I am on wilder country—may find themselves committing a criminal offence. I do not think that that is a possibility that we should consider.
	Let us consider the case of flushing out, which has been mentioned. Any of us who have been shooting knows that dogs are put into the wood to put up pheasants, as I understand it, or whatever other birds one is seeking to flush. However, as I understand it, if those dogs chasing through the wood, encouraged by the beaters, suddenly come across a rabbit, fox or any other mammal, as they very likely will, they are then committing a criminal offence. That seems absolute madness. There was no intention that they should be chasing the fox or the rabbits, and indeed the beaters will do their best to get them back to the job of flushing out as quickly as they may. However, unless we have this matter properly defined in the Bill we are going to have a huge doubt about the legal position.
	I do not think that we should allow legislation to pass from this House with that kind of doubt hanging over it. I do not think that we should put ourselves in a position of perhaps creating criminals of people who had absolutely no intention of hunting but cannot mount an effective defence. Even the noble Lord who has just spoken may occasionally take a dog for a walk. It is possible that that dog will chase a mammal. I do not want to see him prosecuted either for committing the offence that he hates so much. I hope that we shall support both these admirable amendments.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and can never hope to achieve the parliamentary distinction and service that he has rendered over a long political life. However, I must take issue with him when he twice referred—I think it is fair to say—to this Bill, rather than to these amendments, as an onslaught on the integrity of the Bill.
	If there has been an onslaught on the integrity of the Bill, it occurred in the House of Commons when the original Bill succumbed to an onslaught of prejudice by Back-Benchers. I use the word "prejudice" advisedly. I suggest that the one single issue which might make those of us who are against abolition take the contrary view would be if there was solid evidence that hunting of foxes by hounds was a cruel pursuit. But the evidence—as collected by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, as produced before the hearings at Portcullis House, as submitted by a variety of vets and other people who know what they are talking about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to succinctly—is plain to the contrary. The only method known to mankind of hunting a fox so as to leave it at the end of the hunt 100 per cent alive or 100 per cent dead is hunting by hounds.
	Every alternative suffers from a double defect; that is, first, the competence of the shooter or the layer of a trap or poison. Secondly, where there is not an outright death by shooting, trapping or poisoning, there is the prospect of long, agonising suffering. Therefore, I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that he should not continue with a line that, I believe, in all objective truth, has been exploded. In exploding the case of cruelty, the case for abolition has been exploded. I strongly support the amendments that we are now discussing and I strongly support the amendments that follow, which seek to return the Bill to the kind of state in which it was introduced to the House of Commons.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Will the Minister focus closely on the effect of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, which is simply to require that this crime shall not be committed unless it be shown to be committed intentionally? It is quite a sensible legal maxim to hold that there should be no crime without a guilty mind. We have heard passionately explained the reasons why the other place should prevail in its view if there is a conflict with this House. That is because it is elected; its Members are elected.
	Will the Minister reflect on this? If he does not provide a clear definition of a crime—as proposed in the noble Baroness's amendment—he is leaving the definition of the crime to the judges. The judges are not elected—not yet, at any rate. Is that what he wishes to achieve, rather than to accept a simple amendment which brings the legislation—whatever its merits or its ultimate effect—into line with the most fundamental maxim of criminal law?
	There is just one other matter. The Government have made a big point about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. It is just a little difficult to claim to be tough on the causes of crime, if one declines to define what is a crime.

Lord Eden of Winton: I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. In doing so, I should be grateful if the Minister would help me by clarifying the position about what would constitute a criminal offence in these circumstances. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell gave a personal illustration of taking a dog for a walk. I had a similar experience, albeit more than a decade ago.
	I remember the experience clearly because I was walking with two dogs along a riverbank. Running parallel with the riverbank was a railway raised on a bank. It so happened that both the bank of the railway and the bank of the river provided the perfect habitat for rabbits. As I said, it was many years ago. Many of the rabbits encountered on that walk were suffering from myxomatosis and were hardly able to move. I shall not describe the nature of my dog because it did not have to be a very athletic beast in those circumstances. Several of the rabbits were caught and we dealt with them appropriately because they were blinded and in the most appalling condition from myxomatosis.
	I do not know whether that would fall under utility or under another provision in the Bill. Without the addition of the word proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, it would seem that if my wife and I, who were in control of the dogs, allowed a similar situation to occur today, or when the Bill becomes law, we would be guilty of a crime. That is unrealistic. It is something that goes against any concept of common sense, which is worrying a great number of people.
	Many people who are not hunting—I do not hunt—and just go out in the normal course of exercising their dogs and so forth, would experience something like that. I am sure that that happens every day. Anyone who goes into the country must experience similar occurrences to that. Perhaps people in towns do not; although they might in public parks, particularly where there is a surfeit of grey squirrels and now a surfeit of foxes. But in the country it happens regularly. Are those people to be considered criminals? Are the police to be required to pursue them? Are neighbours to be encouraged to spy on them and to report on them? What kind of society is the noble Lord trying to create?

Lord Hooson: While listening to the debate, I was thinking that I have already twice declared an interest in this matter; first, my agricultural activities and, secondly, for many years I represented a county where there was widespread hunting of foxes because they were so much the predators of sheep. Now I have a third interest to declare. I finance my activities as a farmer and as a politician by another profession where I benefited enormously from being able to argue, from time to time, that the meaning set out in an Act of Parliament was entirely obscure and that a different meaning could be given to it. It was therefore very important that the benefit of the doubt should be given to those clients for whom I was appearing at the time.
	That is why it is so important to have clarity in this Act. My old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will appreciate that point. In this country, no one should be convicted of an offence—least of all a fairly obscure one like this—unless it is absolutely proven that he or she had the intention of crossing that Act of Parliament. What is proposed in the first amendment, which is a crucial amendment and totally necessary in this Bill, clears up the obvious ambiguity; that is, what constitutes hunting?
	Let us take the example of a drag hunt, which is to become one of the approved pursuits. The dogs follow the drag scent, but a different scent may intervene, perhaps from a hare or a fox. The dogs will follow that scent. Is a criminal offence being committed under those circumstances? Should the people who initially laid out the drag scent be prosecuted?
	The Minister for Rural Affairs in the other place is, in my experience, a sensible, reasonable and balanced man. During the Committee stage in the Commons he stated that:
	"The intentions and actions of the hunter determine what is going on".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 4/2/03; col. 735.]
	That is what he intended, but the Bill which has come to this House does not spell that out. Thus the purpose of the amendment is to spell out the intention so clearly stated by the Minister for Rural Affairs but not made clear in the Bill now before noble Lords. The Minister went on to say that:
	"The actions and intentions of the hunter determine what is going on. Without the intent, a person is not hunting and is not covered by the offence in Clause 1".
	But the Bill does not make that clear. All that this first amendment seeks to do is spell it out.
	I am amazed that my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, does not appreciate this point. Surely it is not the purpose of this House, as a revising Chamber, to give a blank cheque to an obscure Act and not seek to make it clear. On reflection, I think that my noble friend would agree that the first amendment should be accepted. I would be surprised, knowing him of old, if he did not accept that. Similarly, I support entirely the second amendment in the group.

Lord Elton: On the narrow point of intention, I rise merely to remind the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that at this time of year, although increasingly throughout the year, parks—including London parks—where dogs are allowed off the lead are alive with grey squirrels. If you let a dog off the lead in a London park, you know that it is likely to see and to pursue a grey squirrel. You know also that the squirrel will make it to the safety of a tree first, while the dog has fun chasing it. The squirrel may lose a nut, but no one is the worse for it. However, under the terms of the Bill, you are knowingly allowing the dog to pursue a wild mammal; it need not be a fox.
	On other matters I am very much at one with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. In its present form I think that the Bill is wrong-headed and it is the function of this Chamber to ask the other place to think again when it gets something manifestly wrong, in particular when it is doing so in the face of a growing chorus of disapproval from the majority of the inhabitants of these islands.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I should like very much to extend a word of sympathy to the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench opposite, the Minister responsible for this Bill. I developed this rather surprising wave of sympathy for him during the Second Reading debate, when the noble Lord seemed to be armoured only by his deftness. Perhaps we can derive a strange kind of satisfaction from the fact that he was doing the will of the "second Tony", as one might call him, Mr Banks, who regards this issue as having been totemised.
	It is rather a pity that, when the noble Lord came to reply to that debate, he did not mention any word of the speech of his noble friend Lady Mallalieu. Let me quote one sentence from her remarks:
	"True democracy ensures fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids misuse of a dominant position. Its hallmarks are fairness, tolerance and broad-mindedness, which are impossible to find in this vindictive little Bill".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 783.]
	I hope that, on this occasion, the noble Lord will find it possible at least to say that he has listened to his noble friend. While I could not possibly ask him to say that he agrees with her, I am sure that he would not be so obtuse as to say he disagrees.
	I wish to make one other brief and simple point on the question of enforceability, a matter already touched on by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and my noble friend Lord Eden, both of whom have asked how the police can be expected to enforce a law which makes criminal an action which has not been clearly defined.
	Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord of one sentence he used in his Second Reading speech on the question of unenforceability:
	"The threat of disruption and unenforceability is not one to which the Government or Parliament can or should succumb".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 771.]
	I hope that that threat does not feature large in our debates. I want to ask the Minister as clearly as I can—and I hope that he will try to answer my question—whether he is really suggesting that enforceability is a matter of no importance for legislators to consider.

Lord Donoughue: I support this amendment, to which my name is attached. I say to my good and noble friend Lord Graham that I share the puzzlement expressed by the rest of the Chamber. It seems to me that this first amendment would strengthen the banning Bill, should we emerge with that legislation, because it gives it a clarity and credibility which it would otherwise lack for the reasons that have been explained.
	I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench why the question of intention is not addressed in this Bill. He will know better than most that previous legislation in this area has done so. The last major piece of legislation was the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, which no doubt my noble friend knows word for word. He will know that the opening section states that if someone is doing something "with intent", that constitutes the offence. My own Private Member's Bill seeks to amend that Act in order to curb cruelty to mammals. It states that it is an offence "deliberately" and "with intent" to cause undue suffering to animals.
	The Government took over the banning Bill in an act of striking humiliation and capitulation, but since then it has been the Government's Bill and they have chosen to present it to noble Lords as it is. Perhaps my noble friend can explain to noble Lords why the crucial issue of intent is not met.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has just pointed out, I think that we would help the Government if we were to pass the amendment. I say that because in Committee in another place, the Minister responsible for the Bill, Mr Alun Michael, said that:
	"The hunt is the intention to pursue a wild animal. Without that, a person is not hunting and is therefore not covered by the offence in Clause 1".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 4/2/03; col. 736.]
	Later in that Committee, he said in response to a question put to him by another Member of the Committee that,
	"it depends on whether they are hunting".
	If people are merely observing, then they are not hunting. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made the point herself: how is one to separate those who are hunting from those who are simply observing, gossiping or talking to their neighbours and doing what many people do while out hunting? Is it only the huntsmen who are actually hunting, is it the master, the field master, or is it those members of the field within a certain distance of the hounds?
	Unless the question of intent is satisfactorily resolved there will be endless difficulties in enforcing the provisions of the Bill. I do not see how anyone can reasonably oppose what is, after all, a very small but important amendment. I hope that the Committee will support it.

Viscount Ullswater: It is right that at the outset of the Committee stage we should debate the intention of the owner of the dog. We have heard arguments—for instance, the one raised by my noble friend Lord Eden—which demonstrate the need to protect the dog walker from inadvertently becoming liable to an offence. The intention of the dog may be quite different to the intention of the owner and the two should not be confused. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, indicated that the drafting of legislation for previous Acts attempted to recognise that fact.
	The Bill seeks to draw a very fine line in regard to animal welfare. It is apparently all right to shoot, snare, ferret, fly a falcon or hunt with dogs the rabbit or the lowly rat, but not the four wild animals that are commonly the quarries of packs of hounds. The welfare of the rabbit somehow is not a problem. My noble friend Lord Eden referred to the occasion when he was walking his dog and came across rabbits with myxomatosis. You can do what you like with rabbits. They are exempted; they do not seem to have a welfare problem.
	The Bill is aimed at the hunter rather than at the hunted. How can animal welfare campaigners be so selective as to distinguish between the hare and the rabbit? Many people would not be able to tell the difference between the two species.

Lord Eden of Winton: Rabbits are not exempted in that sense. They are exempted only if they are on land that you own; or if you have permission from the owner of the land; or, if you do not know who owns it, you have taken the trouble to try to find out who owns it. If, in the illustration I gave, I had no idea whether it was public land or whatever on the side of a river, it would not be covered by the exemptions itemised in Schedule 1 to the Bill.

Viscount Ullswater: I accept my noble friend's strictures. I was referring to the welfare of the animal rather than the preconditions needed for hunting to take place.
	We do not have a tradition of hunting rabbits with packs of hounds, but in France they do. There are 45 foot packs registered there which are experiencing a rapid growth in popularity, as the Burns report tells us. Where would the welfare considerations of the humble rabbit be in this country if packs of hounds were hunting it? Would it suddenly gain different rights to protect it from hunting with dogs? Once the intention becomes a collective sport it runs the risk of being banned. It is impossible to consider the Bill in terms of animal welfare when such glaring inconsistencies exist.
	In any proper regulation of hunting legislation, an intention on behalf of the hunter needs to be demonstrated. I support this simple but important amendment.

Lord Mancroft: My noble friend Lord Ullswater may well have put his finger on the issue. This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, believes, an animal welfare Bill—it was never intended to be; it is a criminal Bill. That is the problem. Members of another place and casual observers, if such people exist, tend to think of it in terms of animals, but the Bill has nothing to do with animals at all; it is to do with people and their conduct. It is not a pro-fox or a pro-deer Bill; it is an anti-people Bill which creates a criminal offence.
	During the Committee stage in another place, it became clear that the Minister had spent an awful lot of time looking at the issue of hunting and consulting experts, scientists, vets and so on. But what he did not do, I suspect, was to go out to see what happens in the countryside; to observe what lawyers might call the facts of the case; to see what happens when people go out with dogs in the countryside, either with the personal intention of hunting or of going for a walk with their dogs and not hunting. That is where the problem exists.
	As with so many Bills, it is a problem of language. You might come up to me and say, "What are you doing on Saturday?" and I might say, "I am going hunting". But I promise you that I am not going to run across a field, barking, after the scent of an animal. I cannot do that. Hounds can do that, dogs can do that, but when I say, "I am going hunting", I get on a horse—I do not wear a red coat, but I could—and I follow a pack of hounds. I do what Mr Alun Michael said in Committee in another place. He stated:
	"Hunt followers, who merely observe the progress of the hunters, or follow them at some distance without themselves engaging in the pursuit of the wild mammal being hunted, are not hunting and are not covered by the offence".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee F, 4/2/03; col. 735.]
	If in the process of galloping along on my horse I engaged in the pursuit of the wild mammal—or I got in the way—I would be in dead trouble.
	In reality, I am an observer. When I say, "I am going hunting", I mean that in exactly the same way as others may say, "I am going to football". They are not going to kick a ball about but to sit in a stadium. The only difference between the person who goes to a football stadium, sits in a seat and watches the game being played, and the person who goes hunting on a horse—both are sitting down, thank God—is that, because the field of play moves rather further in hunting, hunters require a chair with legs. But we are not participants. Clearly from what he said in Committee, the Minister believes that we are. There is a complete misconception.
	There is no real definition of hunting in the Bill. It is not as clear as the Minister in another place thinks it is; it is extremely unclear. This means that the provisions in the Bill will be incredibly difficult to enforce. As other noble Lords have said, one of the most obvious problems is that most hunting takes place out of sight and sound of the quarry. When dogs hunt, most of the time they are following an invisible line on the ground. Even the most expert huntsmen are occasionally fooled as to whether they are following a hare, a fox or a deer. Usually they get it right but, although they will not admit it in public, occasionally everyone gets it wrong and the hounds chase the wrong quarry.
	Of course, you cannot see the quarry, but if they can be fooled, how will a police constable be able to give evidence in court about what was going on? He would not possibly know. Who will be the expert witness? There will be probably only one at the scene of the crime—the huntsman—and I very much doubt that he will be an expert witness against himself.
	The Bill is unenforceable because hunting is not defined. I suspect that those who drew up the Bill did not know how to define it. The Bill needs a definition and it needs an intention. As we go through the Bill we will come across other matters that need definition, but the first and most obvious is that there must be an intention to commit the crime. You cannot mug someone by mistake. You cannot steal a car by mistake and say, "Honestly, officer, I did not mean it. It was an accident. I stole it but it wasn't on purpose".
	But you can hunt by mistake. My wife does it every day. She takes out our three dogs and they go hunting. She says, "Stop" and they say, "No", and off they go. That is a reality of life. Technically, she probably commits an offence every day, and I suspect that there are masses of people up and down the country like her. It is essential that we are clear about this.
	I have listened to debates in your Lordships' House when criminal justice Bills were being discussed. On many occasions there were arguments about definitions and the precision of language. This is such a debate. It is not about hunting but about accurate law. As it is drafted at the moment, the Bill is extremely inaccurate.

Lord Skidelsky: I support the amendment for the very narrow but precise reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that it is independent of the wider purposes of the Bill. It is relevant and ought to be part of the Bill, however wide the net of exemption is cast. It is equally relevant for a Bill which bans hunting and a Bill in which certain pursuits are non-exempt. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. Therefore, it is simply a question of good, enforceable and commonsense law. That is the only really relevant point on this amendment.

Earl Peel: No matter what the outcome of the Bill, it is clearly essential that we deliver legislation that will be practicable and workable and which the police can live with, with some degree of confidence.
	I am certain that many of your Lordships will have read in the newspapers recently that the police are deeply concerned about implementing certain aspects of the legislation, so it is essential that we attempt to inject as much clarity as we can into the Bill. For all the reasons that have been given so far, I believe it is essential that we do that. I wholeheartedly support both amendments, because either would achieve the purpose we want.
	I have listened with great interest to what your Lordships have said so far. The more I listen to what is said, the more I realise just how ridiculous a situation we are in. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell gave us an account of walking through the woods with his whippet. He maintains, and I am sure he is right, that he would have no intention of hunting. But supposing my grandmother, if she were still alive—which she is not—was walking through the same woods with two chihuahuas. Can one honestly believe that it would be my grandmother's intention to allow those chihuahuas successfully to pursue a hare? Of course there would be no intention. Therefore, if we do not have a clear definition in the Bill, the police will have to be involved in matters which they frankly will not be able to deal with.
	One other example that comes to mind is that of a farmer, on his quad bike, going out to gather his sheep. His sheepdog is behind him and it temporarily takes off after a hare. Will that farmer be committing an offence under this Bill? If so, we have reached fantasy world, and we really have to think again.

Lord Palmer: I, too, strongly support these amendments. The noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Mancroft, have summed everything up. It is not man that hunts, but hounds. That is a very important distinction and I therefore strongly support the amendments.

Viscount Astor: I thank the noble Baroness for introducing this important amendment. As the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Skidelsky, said, whatever one's views about hunting, this amendment is probably required. It is crucial, as it deals with intent.
	Like the noble Baroness, I sat through the three days of evidence-taking at Portcullis House, and I welcomed the Alun Michael Bill when it was first published. I welcomed it in principle, although I believed it needed amendments. I followed its rather tortuous process through another place, through its 27 Committee sittings. I noted, too—carefully—the Government's manifesto commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. I have always understood Parliament to include this House as well as another place.
	The Alun Michael Bill was wrecked—those are not my words but his. This House is a revising Chamber and it has a duty, if it so wishes, to ask another place to think again and to revise. This amendment is central to any sensible Bill, in whatever state it leaves this House. In Committee in another place, the Minister, Alun Michael, was asked about intent. He said that if people are merely observing, they are not hunting.
	I have read those Committee proceedings very carefully, and I find it very difficult to pinpoint any definition that the Minister made at any stage of the Bill's passage through another place of what constitutes observing and what constitutes hunting. If you are following in a car, are you observing? Surely you must be—you have no control over the hounds. If you are following on foot, what is that? If you are following on a motorbike or a bicycle, what are you doing? Is that any different from following on a horse? Surely such people are observing as well. Who is hunting and who is not hunting? If someone peers over a hedge and looks at the hunt, are they hunting? Have they joined in? What happens if, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, it is a blank day? Is anybody hunting?
	Let us consider drag hunting. As noble Lords have said, should the hounds cross the trail of a fox and suddenly find that is a superior scent to follow, they will not be committing an offence if they hunt backwards because they will not be following the fox, they will be following a scent in the wrong direction. However, if they hunt forwards, they will be committing an offence. This does not make any sense.
	My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew made an important point. Unless the amendment is considered carefully by the Government, it will be left to the courts and judges to define what is a crime. That point was of concern to my noble friends Lord Eden, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Peyton.
	The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey of Talgarth, has a similar intention. I will be interested to hear the Minister's reply to both amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, again asked the crucial question: when will an offence take place? At what point? My noble friend Lord Elton raised the spectre of London and squirrels. It would be an extraordinary effect of the Bill if innocent dog-walkers were suddenly hauled up in their hundreds because their charges misbehaved in whichever London park they happened to be using.
	This is a crucial issue of intent. As my noble friends Lord Ullswater and Lord Mancroft said, this is not an animal welfare Bill. It is about people, not animals. My noble friend Lord Peel summed it up well—we must have a Bill that is practicable and workable, and we must try and inject clarity into the process. I believe this amendment goes a long way—probably all the way—to doing that, and I hope that the Government will accept it or give us very good reasons why they cannot. As I said at the start of my remarks, whatever one's views about the outcome of the Bill, this amendment is probably necessary.

Lord Whitty: When I first saw this amendment, I thought this was a fairly straightforward issue. I thought the question of intent would be discussed and the only issue would be whether it was necessary to include it in the Bill. I will come on to that point in a moment. However, a number of somewhat wider issues have been touched on, starting with the speech of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. I therefore, regrettably, feel constrained to make a few general points in my first intervention in this Committee stage. That will give an indication of the way in which I intend to operate during Committee.
	Your Lordships will be aware of the position I put to the House at Second Reading. I referred to my personal position, which is not particularly relevant in this respect, and to the Government's view of the Bill we received from the Commons.
	I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, that I started by quoting from the Labour Party manifesto somewhat incompletely. Some of you will know that I am rather familiar with Labour Party manifestos, and it has been known that from time to time they contain weasel words, as, no doubt, do those of other parties. However, in this case, it is absolutely clear what it says in the manifesto. The 2001 manifesto refers back to the House of Commons elected in 1997, which made clear its wish to ban fox hunting. It said:
	"The House of Lords took a different view (and reform has been blocked). Such issues are rightly a matter for a free vote and we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view".
	That has now happened.

The Earl of Onslow: Did the Minister say that the manifesto said that the House of Lords blocked the Hunting Bill? If it did, the manifesto is telling a lie.

Lord Whitty: We are talking about the 1997 Parliament, at which point the House of Lords did not accept the same view as the House of Commons.

The Earl of Onslow: This is incredibly important—

Lord Whitty: I am simply quoting the manifesto, if the noble Earl would listen to me for a moment.

The Earl of Onslow: This is incredibly important. If people say that someone did something when he did not, and it has been shown beyond peradventure that he did not, that is not telling the truth. The House of Lords did not block the Hunting Bill, under any circumstances whatever. It had a slightly different view and time ran out. That is not blocking it, and the sooner that is recognised and the sooner that people do not say things that are not exactly coincidental with the facts, the better.

Lord Whitty: As I said, I am quoting the manifesto. What actually happened in the 1997 Parliament was that, as the noble Earl said, this House took a different view from the House of Commons. The manifesto had given the House of Commons a free vote on its views on fox hunting, as we have given the House of Commons in this Parliament a free vote on fox hunting. That House of Commons has made its view known; the view of the House of Commons was different from the original proposition that the Government put before the House of Commons, but it was carried overwhelmingly clearly, with support in that overwhelming majority from members of all parties in the House of Commons.
	The reference to Parliament is thereafter. If the House of Lords now fails to agree with the House of Commons, clearly it will be a matter for the House of Commons where to take the legislation subsequently, and we will in that sense enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.
	I do not want us to get ahead of ourselves, but what we are faced with at this point—

Lord Waddington: The Minister is not right even in that. It is not for the House of Commons to decide whether to reintroduce the Bill. It will be for the Government to decide whether they are going to introduce a Bill themselves or give time for a Bill introduced by a Back-Bencher. It is the Government's responsibility.

Lord Whitty: The noble Lord is completely wrong in that respect. Ultimately, the time in the House of Commons is a matter for the House of Commons itself, particularly in relation to legislation based on a free vote of the House of Commons. It is therefore not entirely in the hands of the Government. It is true that the Government can help that process along or not, but at the end of the day it is a matter for the House of Commons, which has already spoken, and spoken clearly, on what it believes the legislation should provide. That is the Bill before us.
	The Government felt that a degree of compromise at an earlier stage might be possible with the original Bill that we put before the House of Commons. In fact, that was greeted with no great enthusiasm by those who wish to defend hunting. Several of those who have tabled amendments today opposed the basis of that legislation. The next groups of amendments that we will debate, which on the face of it purport to reinstate the original Bill, in fact dilute the original Bill very substantially. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu was clear that she felt that the original Bill would not be acceptable to this Chamber and was certainly not acceptable to her.
	Therefore, the idea that we have an alternative before us today—the original Bill promoted by the Government as against the Bill presented by the House of Commons—is not actually the truth. Instead, we are faced with a Bill that has been passed by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons, which is in line with the manifesto commitment and the Government's responsibility to facilitate that Bill passing into law.

Baroness Mallalieu: Is it no longer the Government's intention to continue to deliver a Bill based on evidence, which was the promise that was made both by my right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael and by the Prime Minister and was the basis of the original Bill?

Lord Whitty: The evidence base of the original Bill was one set of evidence. The evidence that was taken into account by the majority in the House of Commons includes other views, and views that some Members of this House undoubtedly query. The fact is that the House of Commons has made a judgment. Although that judgment does not meet with the approval of large sections of this Chamber, it is a fact. If we ignore that fact in this debate we are avoiding discussing the content of the legislation and the potential constitutional impasse that we will be up against. Therefore, we should be dealing with the Bill that is now before us.

Lord Donoughue: I thank my noble friend for giving way. Because he was being interrupted, he may not have conveyed the total contents of the Labour Party manifesto. Will he allow me to tell the Committee what it says? It says that the Government,
	"will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view".
	The Minister conveyed that accurately, but then he was interrupted and did not have a full opportunity to read out the following sentence, which says:
	"We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue".

Noble Lords: He said that.

Lord Donoughue: I know that he meant that, but I do not believe that it came across as clearly as he would have wished.

Lord Whitty: As a number of my noble friends have said, I read that bit out as well. I said that we are not yet at that stage. Excuse me, I need my glasses—the Labour manifesto needs to be written in larger print. It says:
	"If the issue continues to be blocked we will look at how the disagreement can be resolved".
	The manifesto says that, in that context,
	"we will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue".
	Parliament can reach a conclusion in a number of different ways, and it is open to the House of Lords to attempt to amend this Bill. I was pointing out to the Committee that, in line with the manifesto and the Government's responsibilities, noble Lords must consider the Bill that is before them. I, in terms of the Government's responsibilities, must make it clear that I—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the Minister and sorry to interrupt him. Did I hear him correctly when he said that the Labour Party manifesto referred to fox hunting and that the Government would give the House of Commons the opportunity to vote? Are those the exact terms? Fox hunting?

Lord Whitty: Yes, they are, and if my noble friend takes the matter further he can no doubt say that hare coursing and stag hunting are therefore not covered by the manifesto commitment. Nevertheless, they are covered by the legislation introduced through the House of Commons.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. This is a Bill to ban the hunting of wild mammals, not to ban fox hunting, so in actual fact the House of Commons has gone very much further than the Labour Party manifesto wanted it to go.

Lord Whitty: Yes—the House of Commons, on a free vote, has gone further than the manifesto commitment. However, the core of the Bill and most of the argument in the course of the discussion of the amendment, which does not of itself really provoke such a wide discussion, was focused very much on fox hunting. The fact that the Bill before us goes somewhat wider than that does not undermine the fact that the Government are broadly following the manifesto commitment.
	I have engaged in this rather lengthy preamble in order to—

Earl Ferrers: If the Government are following the manifesto commitment, were they not following the manifesto commitment with their original Bill?

Lord Whitty: Yes—the manifesto commitment is to allow the House of Commons a free vote on the issue. That is what we have done. The manifesto commitment is completely fulfilled and has resulted in the Bill that is before us.
	I apologise to the Committee for making such a long preamble. However, it is a preamble to me saying that, because of that background—because of the decisions taken by the House of Commons, the attitude that the House has hitherto taken and the amendments that are before us, which are an attempt to substitute at later stages an alternative to the Bill—I am not going to recommend to the Committee that we accept any amendments to the Bill, whether this amendment or any other amendment. It is, of course, a free vote. I am not binding my colleagues on the Benches behind me and I am not attempting to determine that the noble Earl opposite will always oppose me.

The Earl of Onslow: In all my time in this House I do not think that I have ever heard a more arrogant disregard of people's views. It is completely disgraceful that a Government Minister should come to the Front Bench and say that he has no intention of paying any attention to any views put forward in your Lordships' House. That is an abuse of Parliament. I have not yet finished. It is second rate and it shows how low this Government have now fallen. I have been angry before but never so angry as when I hear that kind of arrogant remark.

Lord Kirkhill: Before my noble friend the Minister responds, as a long-standing Member of this House—just about as long-standing as the noble Earl—I say that the noble Earl's intervention just now was entirely disgraceful in its content, its attitude and its expression. I for one take the strongest possible objection to it.

Lord Whitty: I thank my noble friend for that intervention if only because it prevented me responding rather more strongly. I respectfully point out to the noble Earl that I did not say that I would not take any notice of what was said in your Lordships' House. I did not say that I would not recommend the House of Commons to take notice of what was said in your Lordships' House. I said that I would not recommend acceptance of any amendment which is before this House. That is entirely different. That does not seem to me arrogant. It is a matter for your Lordships' judgment whether that is second rate but it is certainly not arrogant.

Earl Ferrers: I realise that the noble Lord does not want to be arrogant and I am sure that he does not intend to be. But if he says that he is not prepared to listen to an argument to find out whether it has anything in it before saying whether or not it should be accepted, that is being slightly arrogant. Surely the whole purpose of putting down amendments is to hear the argument.

Lord Whitty: I did not say that I would not listen to argument. I said that in the rather unique circumstances in which we find ourselves when both Houses have a free vote, and when the Government, in line with their manifesto commitment, have brought to this House a Bill carried by a free vote of all parties in the House of Commons, it is not the Government's intention to indicate support for amendments to that Bill.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Is my noble friend prepared to tell us what he believes would be the effect of introducing the word "intentionally" into the legislation?

Lord Whitty: We should all be grateful to my noble friend for getting down to the actual content of the amendment. Perhaps we can calmly face up to that. Whether we address the original Bill presented to the House of Commons, the Bill that we have before us or the amendments before us today, it is clear that we are all talking about intentional hunting. The question is whether we need the word "intentionally" in the text of the Bill in order to convey that meaning. This, in essence, is a technical issue. I am advised that the ordinary English meaning of "to hunt" incorporates all the senses of searching for, pursuing, tracking and chasing. According to The Oxford English Dictionary, to hunt means to go in pursuit of wild animals or game; to engage in the chase; to pursue; to engage in; to chase—in other words, all words which convey intention: the intention of the hunter—the human—not the intention of the dog.
	It is therefore clear from the normal definition of "hunting" that the dog which runs after a squirrel in the park; people who are not themselves engaged in the organisation of hunting but are simply observers; and people who deal with injured animals, as was the case with the rabbits mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Eden—that is a clear exemption in the Bill under paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 1—or the motorist to which my noble friend Lady Mallalieu referred, would not be covered by intentional hunting. The latter two cases are clearly exempt under the Bill. The advice I have, which is technical advice, is that it is not necessary to insert the word "intentionally" in the Bill at this point.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am most obliged to the Minister, but this debate so far has ranged round countryside pursuits. But, of course, the countryside is not the only part of our country which is involved. We now have urban foxes, squirrels and all sorts of animals coming into gardens. Would someone with a large garden who set his alsatian dog on a fox or squirrels on his property to drive them out be hunting? If he is not, how does the Minister explain the Bill and what he has just said? If he is, very many more people than think they will may be criminalised.

Lord Whitty: There are exemptions for pursuit of non-specified species on one's own property. If someone has organised a hunt with a pack of hounds, that is intent. However, if someone has let a dog loose in a park, whether urban or rural, that is not intent. That is implied in the word "hunt". The Committee may feel that for the avoidance of doubt we ought to introduce the word "intentionally" into Clause 1. The normal advice from parliamentary counsel and lawyers is that if it is not necessary, it is otiose to introduce it. I make that technical point. I give way.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: I happen to be of the view that we need one or other of these two amendments, whether we are for or against hunting. I slightly prefer the second of the two amendments, partly for the reasons which the Minister gave on whether intention would be implied anyway. Can the Minister explain how I can achieve the result I want, which is to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, rather than Amendment No. 1, because presumably if we pass the first amendment, the second will fall?

Lord Whitty: That is probably a matter for the House authorities rather than me. If the first amendment is pressed to a vote and is passed, no doubt we would be advised whether the second amendment would then fall. However, as I say, that is not a matter for me.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: Best of all, of course, would be if we could combine the two amendments, but it may be too late to do that now. I suspect that would suit everyone—those who are for hunting and those who are against.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister responds to the debate, I am a relatively new Member of this House compared with some who have spoken, and I do not know in what status the debate on this Bill is left if the Government are saying that, regardless of the merits of what is said on any amendment, they will not accept them. It seems to me a bit like a judge who says, "I will listen to you but I have made up my mind about your guilt". I am trying to make clear what is the purpose of the debate that is to follow if the Government have a closed mind on the amendments that will be put forward.

Lord Whitty: The purpose of the debate is for the Committee to decide what its view is on a free vote. All I said was that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves the Government are not suggesting support for any amendment which is on the Marshalled List today.

Lord King of Bridgwater: Before the Minister sits down, I listened very carefully to his final sentence. Is he saying that the Government will not support any amendment that is due for debate today—any amendment on the Marshalled List? I shall have to advise certain conservation groups as well as others who are not particularly involved in the debate for or against hunting but which think that the Bill could be improved. Am I to tell them that it is not worth tabling amendments?

Lord Whitty: Of course it is worth tabling amendments for debate in this House where the House will have a free vote. The House of Commons will then have to consider its view of any amendments which are carried by this House. The only point that I make today is that the Government do not advocate amendments to the Bill as it stands. On a clause-by-clause basis, that is a pretty usual position for the Government to take in this House when we are dealing with a Bill from the House of Commons.

The Earl of Onslow: It is not.

Lord Whitty: On a clause-by-clause basis, it is a very common position for the Government to say that we do not recommend acceptance of an amendment.

The Earl of Onslow: It is not.

Lord Whitty: Will the noble Earl please not interrupt from a sedentary position?

The Earl of Onslow: What the Minister says is not true.

Lord Whitty: The noble Earl is constantly accusing me of telling untruths. Will he please withdraw that comment?

The Earl of Onslow: Time after time, governments of all parties have said that they will take amendments away and look at them because they have listened to what people say on the Floor of this House. The noble Lord is saying, "I have come in with my mind like a steel trap. I do not have the faintest intention of listening to anything that anyone says".

The Countess of Mar: I shall try to introduce a voice of moderation. When the Government disagree with an amendment moved by a noble Lord, wherever he stands in the House, do we not have the right to vote on it? He has the right to divide the House. If the House then agrees to that amendment, the Bill is altered.

Lord Whitty: Precisely. In this circumstance, we will have a free vote. The Government's position is normally to indicate to our supporters how to vote, whereas it is not my intention to recommend accepting any of the amendments, for the reasons that I have spelled out. We are in free-vote territory, although the noble Earl may not understand that. It is a somewhat unique position.
	I should clarify a point made earlier on the procedure: Amendment No. 2 would be called even if Amendment No. 1 were agreed to.

Earl Peel: I accept that the noble Lord has closed his mind to the debate, but it is normal practice for a Minister at least to answer the questions put to him on an amendment. In this case, some of them are technical and need clarification. I hope that he might at the very least consider doing that, as it is the normal practice of this House.

Noble Lords: He has.

Earl Peel: I do not believe that he has for one moment.
	I want to go back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, as it is very important. He asked a question about someone putting their dog on to a fox in, let us say, a garden. I think that I am right in saying that the Minister said that that would not be hunting. However, the Bill states:
	"A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog".
	As we have no definition of "hunting" I suggest that, as the Bill stands, that individual could find himself in some difficulty if a prosecution occurred. Will the Minister clarify that?

Viscount Astor: Before the Minister answers, I would be grateful if he would address who is hunting and who is not. I made the point about foot-followers and people in cars. What is their position? I would be grateful for his explanation, as he has not addressed the issues.

Lord Whitty: Whether or not we incorporate "intentionally", the intention of the clause is to deal with humans who intentionally hunt. Anyone who is involved and is part of the organisation of the hunt seems to me to qualify for "hunting". Anyone driving in a car or watching from a distance who is not part of that hunt in normal circumstances would not be deemed as hunting.

Lord Elton: The Minister—

Lord Whitty: I would like to answer the noble Earl, Lord Peel. I did not say that "hunting" did not include such circumstances in answer to my noble friend Lord Stoddart, but that there were a number of exemptions relating to hunting of animals on one's own land that relate to Schedule 1 on rats, rabbits and, in certain circumstances, hares. The precise position to which he referred is not covered by those exemptions, but many equivalent situations would be.

Lord Elton: The noble Lord's answer leaves quite a lot in doubt. Large numbers of followers on foot, in motor cars and on bicycles subscribe and belong to hunt supporters' clubs. Does that imply intention? Are they caught? Should that not be plain in the Bill? Perhaps the amendment would not make it plain, but a provision on that is surely needed. It needs to be proposed to the other place before we have finished with the Bill, so that it has the arguments before it in green and black.

Lord Whitty: The intention to hunt means engaging in the activity of hunting, not of driving a car down country lanes. There may be some grey areas that would have to be determined by the courts, but in general the definition is pretty clearly the intention to participate in a hunt.
	I shall go back to the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Peel. The principal amendment relates to "intentionally". To say that I have not replied to that point takes the biscuit. I have been replying to it for nearly 30 minutes. I continue to intend to reply to the debate. If it will help the Committee to have my interpretation on issues raised by the amendments, I will give that. All that I say is that I will not, at the end of that, recommend acceptance of any amendment before us today.

Lord Brittan of Spennithorne: With regard to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Peel, the Minister may have been a little rapid in his final answer. He conceded that the exemption that would mean that someone was not guilty if he hunted a rabbit on his own land did not apply to a fox. Is he not saying that my noble friend is absolutely right and that, in the circumstances that he described of setting a dog on a fox in one's own land, one would be guilty of the offence?

Lord Whitty: That is consistent with what I said in relation to foxes. However, some species are exempt under the Bill. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was actually in relation to squirrels, and that may also require some clarification.

Lord Waddington: I am sure that the noble Lord would want to be entirely frank with the Committee. Is not the position this: he is not prepared to accept any amendment, even one recommended as necessary by a noble and learned Lord, because if the Government did so and the Bill did not become law this Session, the consequences of the Government having accepted such an amendment here and in the other place would be that they could not use the Parliament Act if the Bill were rejected next Session? That is the truth of the matter.

Lord Whitty: No. I have argued that the Committee should not get ahead of itself. Let us find a way through the matter without necessarily pre-empting all the subsequent stages that the House of Commons—I repeat, the House of Commons—might take. Were I to take the noble Lord's advice and accept every amendment recommended by a noble and learned Lord, the Government would find themselves in serious trouble.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: The noble Lord is saying that he will not accept any amendment. Is he also saying that he will not reject any amendment?

Lord Whitty: In Committee, we have a free vote. It is not down to me to accept or reject. I wish to hear the debate. As it happens, I do not propose to vote either way in Committee. What I do at subsequent stages depends how the House decides on the various amendments now and in future. All that I say today is that there is no amendment in the Marshalled List that the Government are prepared to advise the Committee or any Member of the Committee to accept.

The Earl of Caithness: Will the Minister clarify a point that he made earlier? He seemed to say that the dog of the daughter of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell would not be hunting if it went off when taken for a walk. Then he said that the provision would prevent hunting by packs. I cannot find a definition of "pack" in the Bill. What is the Minister's definition?

Lord Whitty: It is not a question of numbers of dogs; it is a question of intention to hunt.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I must return to the question of the householder who sets his dog on a fox which might invade his garden or on squirrels, hedgehogs and all kinds of wild mammals which might do so. It is an important point.
	The argument has revolved around fox hunting but has widened. There seems always to have been an argument between the town and the country and the Bill appears to put the townies at risk, too. From what I heard the Minister say, I understand that the person who sets an Alsatian or any other kind of dog on any wild mammal other than those exempted under Schedule 2 will be committing an offence. It is important that every householder in this country, particularly if he has a large garden in an urban setting, understands that if someone goes out and reports him for setting his dog on foxes, squirrels or other wild animals not exempted, he may well be committing a criminal offence and he can be arrested, arraigned and fined £5,000.
	The matter must therefore be clarified and that may well require an amendment to Schedule 2. If so, will the Minister still say he is not prepared to recommend the acceptance of an amendment which will protect people living in the urban environment that I have described?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am trying very carefully to be as reasonable as possible. My noble friend the Minister has sat down five times before someone has asked for an intervention "before the Minister sits down". I have absolutely no desire to stifle questions or debate at all, but I sense from all sides of the Committee that Members are beginning to feel that questions are being repeated merely because the questioner does not like the answer. Noble Lords would be delayed a long time were that practice to grow and continue.

Viscount Astor: I should be happy for the Minister to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and then to hear from the noble Baroness. But it is Committee stage and it is important that the Minister gives us full replies.

Lord Whitty: I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, in these matters. I thought that I had given a full reply. I said that where a person intentionally unleashes a dog or dogs on a mammal which is not exempted under Clause 8, it could constitute hunting under the Bill. Some of the examples which have been thrown at me fall under that category and some do not, but in relation to foxes it will include activity on one's own land.

Baroness Mallalieu: I shall not delay the Committee any more than I have to, save to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Given that the Minister has said that intention is the key to criminality, I am profoundly surprised that that word appears nowhere in the Bill.
	I had not thought that I would be unleashing a tide of slightly intemperate exchange when I introduced what seemed to me an amendment to which no one could take exception, whichever side of the debate they were on. Whatever course the Bill takes—whether regulatory or a ban—it seemed that it would be improved by clarifying the nature of the criminal offence that had to be proved.
	The Minister said that the amendment is unnecessary. Presumably, it would have been possible for him to accept that word on the face of the Bill and avoid a considerable debate. No doubt it would have speeded up our deliberations.
	I have very much in mind what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said. I, too, am attracted by the second amendment, but I propose that the Committee should consider the first. For that reason, I wish to test the feeling of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 271; Not-Contents, 58.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Lord Geddes: Before calling Amendment No. 2, I must advise the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 3 due to pre-emption.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 1, line 4, leave out from "he" to end of line 5 and insert "expressly encourages a dog to hunt a wild mammal that can be shown to be present, unless his hunting is registered or exempt"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Mallalieu: We were unaware of the result of what was said a little earlier—that is, that Amendment No. 2 would result in a pre-emption of Amendment No. 3. Can that be checked because I believe that I and other Members of the Committee were not aware of it? I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, was aware of that.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It was stated very clearly for the benefit of the Committee. The Deputy Chairman of Committees made it plain that, if Amendment No. 2 were carried, Amendment No. 3 would not be called through pre-emption. It was clearly heard and Amendment No. 2 was moved and agreed to.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: It does not seem to me that Amendment No. 3 can arise because the word "registered" is included in Amendment No. 2. Therefore, as I understand it, the noble Baroness should be perfectly happy.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Mancroft: moved Amendment No. 4:
	After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
	"REGISTERED HUNTING
	(1) Hunting by an individual is registered if he is the subject of individual registration in respect of— 5 (a) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
	6 (b) the area in which the hunting takes place.
	(2) Hunting by an individual is also registered if—
	(a) he participates in hunting by a group,
	(b) at least one of the group is registered under a group registration in respect of— 11 (i) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
	12 (ii) the area in which the hunting takes place, and
	15 (c) his participation in the hunting is recorded under arrangements made in pursuance of section (Automatic conditions of group registration) (5).
	(3) Hunting by an individual is also registered if—
	(a) he participates in hunting by a number of individuals, and
	(b) one of the individuals is the subject of individual registration in respect of— 20 (i) wild mammals of the species hunted, and
	21 (ii) the area in which the hunting takes place, and
	(c) the condition of registration imposed by section (Automatic conditions of individual registration) (5) (maximum number of hunters) is complied with.
	(4) In this Act—
	"group registration" means registration under Part (Registration) pursuant to an application under section (Application on behalf of group), and
	"individual registration" means registration under Part (Registration) pursuant to an application under section (Application by individual)."

Lord Mancroft: In her opening remarks the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, helpfully pointed out to the Committee the purpose of the bulk of the amendments that she, the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Carlile, and I intend to move. The purpose of the amendments is to return the Bill to its original architecture, as it was when the Government introduced it to the other place.
	In answering the first amendment, the Minister in the rather sad, heated exchanges that took place at the end of the debate—untypical of this House and I hope that they will not be repeated during the course of the Bill—made it clear that he found himself in unique circumstances. The Minister is right; these are unique circumstances.
	Last December the Government introduced a Bill into the House of Commons—a government Bill, not surprisingly—and as the noble Baroness explained, that Bill was not just changed at Report stage in another place, but completely wrecked. Those were the Secretary of State's words and the Minister's words. The Bill arrived in your Lordships' House in a very different state from that which the Government intended. At the very earliest opportunity the Minister, in answering the many questions and points raised from all sides of the Committee, has said that realistically the Government do not have a view. He said that he would listen to the amendments but he would not advise the Committee whether to accept them or not. However carefully one listened to what he said, it was difficult to discern what the Government now want. They have produced a Bill but they have lost their Bill, although they still claim it is their Bill and now it has come here.
	I do not think that any Member of the Committee wishes to be unreasonable, but we have received no guidance from the Government at all on the Bill: whether they want it; whether they do not want it; or whether they want it changed or amended. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, suggested the best route forward, which is to return the Bill to its original form, based on the principles that stemmed from the evidence. It is worth remembering that the Government commissioned the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, at considerable cost in terms of time and effort from a great number of people—experts, the general public, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his team, my noble friend Lord Soulsby and others. They then engaged in a massive consultation exercise at great expense and trouble—I hate to think what it cost the public purse. They made their views, intentions and plans public; they debated them, discussed them, met all the groups, took all the matters forward and produced a Bill.
	The Government now appear to have abandoned that Bill. They have abandoned it not because that was the Government's policy nor because of the improvements that the House of Commons has made to it, but because both the Secretary of State and the Minister have made it clear that the Bill that we now have, or had when it came into this House, is wrecked. Other words that were used are "unenforceable" and "unworkable". That Bill has been dumped in your Lordships' laps without any hint of what the Government think we should do with it, except to leave it alone.
	I suppose that the only thing we can reasonably do—like the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, we wish to be nothing but reasonable—is to attempt to proceed and to give the Government the Bill that they started with, that they wanted, that they planned and consulted for, that they spent money on and that they worked for all that time. We can give it back to them in the best and most reasonable way that we can. I cannot see that we can do anything else.
	In the first amendment the noble Baroness looked at definitional and criminal problems. Before doing so, she went through the history of how we have reached our present position. The two previous Bills—the one introduced by Mr Foster in the other place in 1997 or 1998 and then the Government's "options" Bill—were primarily Bills to ban this particular activity—hunting. However, badly or well it may have been defined, that was the object—a ban.
	The significant factor from a political point of view is that those Bills were supported by the Prime Minister. He may not have voted for them quite as often as he thought he did. We know he has a problem with fact and fiction, but we shall gloss over that. We know that if he had thought about voting he would have. Let us not make a fuss about that. He supported them. The Deputy Prime Minister, the then Secretary of State of that department, Mrs Beckett, and the Minister who sponsored this Bill, supported both those banning Bills.
	We then had the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the public consultation, the Portcullis House hearings and everything that went with it, which, as the noble Baroness said, was in the public domain. The result was a Bill which centrally did not ban the activity. The reason for that is that all that consultation, all those public hearings and the Portcullis House hearings recorded quite clearly that there is not a reasonable, legitimate case for a ban. The Government recognised that, whether or not they liked to admit it. Therefore, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State, Mr Michael, put their names to a Bill which was publicly based on principles which stemmed from the evidence which showed quite clearly that you cannot ban this activity.
	So, in principle, this Bill and the Bill in its original form are completely different. One had the principle of a ban, which was supported by those people as such. This Bill, when it came into the House of Commons, was completely different. It did not have that ban because they could not justify it. Now, thanks to the activities and behaviour in the House of Commons we have a Bill with the principle at its heart torn out. That is the Bill we have and the one with which we have to deal.
	It seems to me and to other noble Lords that the way, therefore, to deal with the issue is to put back the registration process. The registration process allows hunting in regulated form to continue. That removes the ban. By removing that registration process in another place the Back-Benchers turned the Government's Bill into their own toy. I do not know what we should do because we are receiving no guidance from the Government. However, it seems to me that the responsible thing for this Chamber to do is quietly, responsibly and gently to put back as best we can the principle that the irresponsible Members in another place ripped out. We like to be helpful.
	Registration was put in the Bill in the first place because all the evidence pointed—and it is very important to make this single point—to the fact that hunting is not cruel. The supposed reason why people have wanted for years to ban hunting is that it is cruel. In fact, one of the most interesting things about this process since 1997—the Burns report, the Portcullis House hearings and all the consultation—is what the evidence has shown. For example, the Portcullis House hearings brought together experts for the first time. They were asked to explain and to express in public what their views on welfare were and how these things work—difficult questions.
	I have been involved in this debate now for many years. If I have not met those scientists personally, I have read their works. I know that many of the leading welfare scientists in this country were never particularly keen on hunting. They were not very interested or thought that it was not a significant welfare issue. I suspect that quietly they were not very keen on it.
	During the public hearings, those scientists were questioned, asked to present papers and to think about these issues. It was very interesting to see so many of them move their views. Those views are still moving. There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, says in his report, an extraordinary shortage of accurate science in the relevant areas. But there is a little. Most, if not all, of it produces evidence that comes down to the fact that hunting is not actually very cruel. It does not appear to cause a great deal of stress. It certainly measures up extremely well when compared with other methods.
	Most of these things are extremely difficult to measure. The noble Baroness talked about the principles that emerged from the Portcullis House hearings. One matter upon which virtually all the scientists were agreed was that you cannot actually measure suffering. It is impossible to measure the suffering of a fox being hunted, compared with a fox being shot at, poisoned or snared. There is no barometer of suffering to which we can refer. If one asks scientists to talk about what they know about stress, distress and animals' reactions, they will say, "Well, actually, the more we think about it, the more we realise that hunting is probably the least stressful, the least distressing and causes the least suffering". The debate is slowly moving in that direction.
	Two substantive pieces of science have appeared in the past six months. The Middle Way Group's report on shooting came down enormously in favour of hunting, not I may add because shooting was bad, but because of best practice. Foxes shot by qualified people who know what they are doing is an extremely good method of control. In some areas it is the only method of control. Equally, if done badly—as is anything done badly in this world—it is not a good idea. That is one of the points that the Middle Way Group has been making. I never focused on it at the beginning, but of course it is right. It is not a question of all shooting being good or all hunting being bad or all anything being good or bad, it is about best practice. One of the original Bill's problems is that it does not take any account of that at all.
	Casting one's mind back to what the noble Baroness was saying earlier, one thing the noble Lord, Lord Burns, makes clear in his report is that most of the problems with hunting would best be dealt with by regulation, by changing the way hunting is carried out. Most internal changes to do with hunting that could be carried out now have been. I have no doubt that there will be more in the future. The issue is about better regulation, not about banning.
	The point that we had reached when the Bill appeared was that a ban was not justified. The Bill starts rather strangely with the fact that hunting is banned unless it is exempt. The exceptions are exempt hunting and registered hunting. That is an unusual roundabout way of going about things. The fact is that it was registered hunting that comprised the bulk of the Bill introduced way back in December of last year, which we are now looking at in the third week of October, after the Government have spent so long dragging it tortuously and rather incompetently through both Houses.
	We shall be looking at the different aspects of suffering and at the tests in registration later on in Committee. Those subjects are not for today. The centre of the original Bill was the registration process. The amendment—the first on this subject—defines who may be registered, not the qualifications, or how or what they have to do.
	There are two distinct groups of people to be registered. There are individuals who may be registered. Although the bulk of the debate in the popular press and certainly in the House of Commons concerns people with red faces and red coats, the vast majority of hunting in this country—I suppose 90 per cent—consists of individuals hunting with their own dogs and on their feet. So, as with so much of this debate, ignorance and prejudice pushes the wrong parts of the subject to the fore. The reality is that most people who will seek registration under the Bill, if it ever becomes an Act, will be individuals.
	So there are two categories of people to be registered: the first is individuals; the second is groups. As I said, this is the first of a tranche of amendments intended to reintroduce the registration process—to give back to the Government the Bill that they introduced. I hope that when they get it back they will be pleased and like the Bill that we have given back to them—doing their work for them; I am always happy to do that.
	I hope that we can take some of the heat out of this debate, because that is what your Lordships are best at doing and what your Lordships are here to do: to revise or amend Bills that have got into a muddle on their way through the House of Commons. I do not think that it is controversial to say that on its way through the House of Commons, this Bill got into an awful muddle, but with this amendment, I hope to start to return it to a workable piece of legislation. I beg to move.

Baroness Byford: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
	Line 5, leave out "the" and insert "one or more"

Baroness Byford: This group of amendments are amendments to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. At the outset, I should say that I support his Amendment No. 4, which brings important matters before the Committee. If I may, I shall speak first to the amendments individually and explain my reasons for tabling them, before returning to make a few more comments on Amendment No. 4.
	I move amendment No. 5, but speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 9 and 14, because they all fall under the same banner. The amendments would enable an individual or group registration to apply to hunt more than one species of wild animal. The Bill as drafted may be read to provide that registration is permitted to an individual or group in respect of only one species. There was a substantial debate on that in another place.
	Most hunts currently recognised by one of the official hunting associations are of quarry species—in other words, those hunts registered with the Masters of Foxhounds Association hunt foxes. However, gamekeepers use dogs to hunt a wide variety of wild animals as part of their species management activities. As the National Gamekeepers' Association notes, about 4,000 gamekeepers regularly use their dogs in the necessary control of fox, mink and stoat. The same gamekeepers on occasion use their dogs in pursuit of deer.
	Gamekeepers could find that they had to make three applications for fox, mink and stoats. That is unnecessary bureaucracy. Similarly, I understand that terrier men who are called out to deal with wild mammals where they are a problem use working terriers. Those terriers may be used for more than one species of wild animal.
	During the recess, when I was in Wales, I was talking to someone who acts as a hunt servant of his local hunt. He reminded me that in certain parts of the country—especially in Wales—farmers often call on their local hunts, especially at the start of a lambing season, because of the trouble with foxes. The request is for the use of more than two dogs—often seven or eight—to clear predatory species from the vicinity of the lambing area.
	I now turn to Amendments Nos. 6 and 10, which, after the word "species", would insert the words "to be". They are probing amendments to try to improve the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend. The effect of the amendments is consequential on Amendment No. 5, which I have already described. Its purpose is to tidy up the drafting to ensure that the correct sense of this part of the Bill is established.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 7 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 15. As Amendment No. 4 is drafted, it requires of an individual or group registration that the application must specify the area in respect of which permission to hunt is sought. Existing hunts operate over considerable distances. For all packs registered with one of the hunting associations, there is a designated hunt country for each pack and hunting will take place in different parts of that country on different days.
	Registration will last for three years, during which time the area covered in which gamekeepers or hunts operate may expand or, indeed, retract. If it expands, it could be due to the shooting captain obtaining rights to shoot over a neighbour's land; a hunt clearing more country over which to hunt owing to a change of landowner; or, for example, hunt amalgamation.
	Moreover, hunts provide a call-out service for farmers within their hunt country that can necessitate their travelling to a large variety of areas within that country. It is unnecessary for me to remind your Lordships how important that service is now that we have a ban on fallen stock being buried. That service is hugely important.
	By defining an area for the registered hunt or gamekeeper employed on an estate, it will be harder for those using other working dogs, such as terrier dogs or long dogs, on a call-out basis to define the set area. It will also be hard—if not impossible—for them to be sufficiently familiar with every farm or house on which they may be called to visit to satisfy the utility test without conducting research. At present, they respond to landowners as and when required, whether in the urban or rural environment.
	I now turn to Amendment No. 8, and with it, Amendments Nos. 12 and 16. The effect of these amendments reflects on the previous amendments to which I have just spoken. It would be problematic for hunts or individuals to specify the area in which hunting takes place if that is understood in a restrictive sense. For the reasons I have set out, those wanting to hunt must be able to specify more generally areas in which hunting may take place, or is intended to take place—not that it necessarily does so. Those are important amendments.
	I now turn briefly to Amendment No. 13. It would leave out from "place" to the end of line 15. It would remove the requirement for an individual hunting in reliance on a group registration held by another from being subject to the requirement for his name to be recorded under the amendment's provision:
	"(Automatic conditions of group registration)(5)".
	It is a serious question of civil liberties that people should be free to participate in a lawful activity without undue interference from the state. If the registered person is hunting and others are following that activity, there should be no requirement for those others to be recorded. That is all the more important as there is a real threat of animal rights violence directed against people who participate in hunting and whose identities are known.
	In that context, I ask the Minister to clarify what he was unable to clarify earlier when he was asked about those taking part in hunting. From what I have read of the debate in another place, those who must be registered for hunting are those who actually hunt. The Minister was questioned during debate on the previous amendment about whether followers would be included as part of those who were hunting. If I remember correctly, the noble Lord said that those foot followers were obviously not involved in the hunt. But he did not clarify for us—and he needs to—whether those on horseback who are not involved in the hunting, but are followers or participants, will also be caught within this particular section.
	A person following a pack of hounds via lanes in a car would appear to be hunting. I seek clarification. As Rob Marris told the committee on 28th January, all those who control dogs are hunting; not all those who are hunting control dogs. I ask the Minister whether that means that followers, on foot or on horseback, are or are not hunting.
	Publishing the identity of those who participate in a hunt could raise serious issues under the data protection legislation and international human rights obligations, with no significant identifiable benefit to animal welfare to balance the intrusion on private life.
	Followers of the hunt have precious little, if anything, to do with the process of hunting, as we have already debated in great detail. Thus the detail should be of no concern to the public or prescribed animal welfare bodies. Indeed, as the Minister stated himself, the enjoyment is a side benefit. He said that he regarded any enjoyment that people may experience from being in the open air and so on as relevant to the judgment that Parliament wishes to make or the judgment which people make on its behalf.
	When Defra issued permits to hunt following the foot and mouth crisis, a condition of the permits was that a record be held by the hunt of the names and addresses of the followers to be made available on request to Defra. A daily record of the area hunted had to be submitted to Defra within 48 hours for the very good reasons which we know. But it raises issues about where the Government stand now.
	I am sorry that these amendments are grouped as they are, but I understand why that is so. I hope that my explanation of these amendments has helped to clarify some points. I remind Members of the Committee that they are probing amendments and that I do not wish in any way to detract from the main thrust of the amendment moved by my noble friend, which is extremely important. I beg to move.

Lord Hoyle: I rise to speak because of some remarks made at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He said that the intention was to introduce amendments that would return the Alun Michael Bill from this House to another place. That is how I understood the noble Lord. If I am wrong on that, I am sure that he will correct me.
	As I understand the amendments to registration and its different aspects, they go a lot further than the Alun Michael Bill. Is it not the intention with these amendments to bring back deer hunting? That is my interpretation and it is a lot wider than the Alun Michael Bill. What happens with regard to hare coursing? Are they going to take away all controls over that activity? That was not in the Alun Michael Bill. There is the question of whether the tests of utility and cruelty will be severely weakened. I speak for those reasons and to say that it is misleading to suggest to the House that all that is attempted is to take back to another place the Alun Michael Bill as it was originally. I believe that what is proposed goes far wider in an attempt to take us back to deer hunting and to weaken the controls established in the Alun Michael Bill.

Lord Mancroft: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. There is a series of amendments, but I am moving one amendment at the moment. It is exactly as it was worded in the Alun Michael Bill. When speaking earlier, the Minister said that through our amendments we were planning to dilute the Bill. I am not sure whether that is the word he used, but I believe that that is what he implied. That may be his view.
	It is true that at later stages later in the Bill we have other amendments and do not deal with the matter in one go, as Mr Banks did. We have divided it so that the Committee will have a reason to look at the issues and discuss all the amendments. We do not believe that we have watered down the Bill. In some places the Government's Bill, as with all government Bills, is not particularly well drafted. We will point out those changes to the Committee. We do not believe that they are hugely significant. It may be that the noble Lord will consider that they are and no doubt he will tell us at that stage. There is no intention to disguise the matter from the House. Where we have felt it right to amend the original Bill we shall put it before the Committee and hear what it has to say. It will decide.
	The amendment before the Committee at the moment is word for word as it appeared in Alun Michael's Bill, as will be the vast majority of the amendments that we shall move. We shall take the trouble to take the Committee through them as carefully as we can so that we can explain exactly what is intended. I do not believe that some of the material is particularly good. For example, in the first amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, there clearly needs to be an intention and the Committee agreed with that. There will be other parts of the legislation which have to be dealt with in the same way. We wish to deal with the issues openly, calmly and reasonably. Perhaps, one day, that will be an example that another place might like to follow.

Lord Hoyle: I thank the noble Lord for his frankness. I believe we can agree that the intention is eventually to go far wider than the Alun Michael Bill and certainly to bring back deer hunting.

Lord Waddington: It is a very small point. I know that the noble Lord does not wish to mislead the Committee in any way, but in a sense it is slightly misleading to speak about the Alun Michael Bill. It was not his Bill but the Government's own Bill, which we should bear in mind the whole time.

Lord Hoyle: I do not mind how it is defined. What is intended is to go far wider and dilute and weaken the Government's Bill.

Lord Davies of Coity: In raising this question on the amendments and addressing hare coursing and deer hunting, do I understand from my noble friend Lord Hoyle that if it is limited to the Alun Michael amendment that he will support it?

Lord Hoyle: I did not say that. The point I am making is that we must not mislead the Committee by amendments being made to the Government Bill which makes it far weaker in every respect.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder whether it would help to make the debate run more smoothly if Members of the Committee were to speak to the mover of the amendment. It is quite complicated to follow when individual Members of the Committee have a duologue across the Chamber.

Lord Donoughue: I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said in proposing the restoration of the process of registration and regulation. I say to my noble friend that it is not taking anything wider. It is the registration process which was in the original government Bill and there is no taking matters wider on this amendment.
	The Bill had defects, which did not please everyone totally, but it pleased virtually everybody to a considerable extent. It followed six months of consultation and scientific evidence. Ultimately, whatever our reservations, we saw it as broadly a fair Bill. It provided that alleged bad practices in hunting should be dealt with.
	The banning Bill is unfair. It is based on prejudice and intolerance. The Minister, when opposing the proposals at an earlier stage in the House of Commons, used such phraseology. I am simply agreeing with him. The Bill is probably unenforceable, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said in a very impressive speech at Second Reading. I believe that animal suffering would be worse under the ban.
	I shall not repeat Second Reading arguments. I wish to speak in narrow terms, particularly to my Labour colleagues. I hope that we will not lose Members of the Committee opposite; I ask for their tolerance. I suggest to my noble friends that the restoration of regulation and registration is based on democratic Labour principles. I use the word "democratic" because, historically, some socialist principles were unacceptable and, like the ban in some respects, draconian in their attempt to deal with issues.
	My first point is obvious. The regulation process was a central part of what was a Labour government Bill. Labour Ministers argued strongly and impressively against a ban. Secondly, the Bill is totally acceptable because it is fair. It is neither discriminatory nor socially divisive, as the ban is. The best of Labour's social policies have been based on fairness and anti-discrimination—Members of the Committee opposite will not always agree. The proposed ban is unfair and certainly discriminates against a minority group.
	My third point is central. The process of registration and regulation is now a mainstream Labour approach in many areas. It secures that the activities of private groups are subject to public accountability. The genuine concerns on my side of the Committee about cruelty in hunting are met by the regulation process. Those genuinely concerned about cruelty and suffering of animals should be satisfied with the Bill. I have not always been convinced that colleagues in another place have been concerned mainly with that.
	The regulation process also secures good practice in hunting. In handling a Private Member's Bill, as I have done over the past two years, I have met many country sports groups. It has struck me that they all want good practice and the elimination of bad practice. The registration and regulation process proposed and described in the amendment achieves that.
	Fourthly, the Bill should be very acceptable to all Labour colleagues, because it protects thousands of jobs in the countryside, whereas the ban creates serious rural unemployment. The Burns report said that it would take 10 years for the jobs lost to be reabsorbed in the rural economy. Perhaps not all my colleagues in the House of Commons share my belief that it is not a Labour approach to create unemployment in the way that the ban will.
	We discussed the party manifesto earlier. Although I was concerned that it should be accurately recorded in full, it does not commit the Government to a ban on hunting, nor does it say what the conclusion of Parliament's deliberations should be. In addition, it does not say that it should impose the House of Commons view. It says that it will enable Parliament to reach a conclusion—Parliament, not the Commons.
	For those five reasons, and as a lifelong Labour supporter and non-hunter, a ban would be offensive and against my Labour principles. In supporting the amendment, I call on my colleagues to do the same.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: The passing of Amendment No. 2 incorporates specifically the principles of registration and exemption. The new clause contained in Amendment No. 4 clarifies and defines registration. The regulations to be introduced will be specific to individuals, as defined in the amendment, and groups. They will also relate specifically to wild mammals and the area in which they are hunted. Registration is the civilised alternative to a ban. It underwrites good practice, which is an essential element of the principle of registration being debated in the amendment. The amendment is vital, as it clarifies registration and the question of participation, which it takes into account in provisions for group registration, for example.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was honest in saying that her amendments were probing measures. I am sympathetic to that and shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. Amendment No. 4 defines registered hunting. Having accepted the principle, I feel that the amendment is necessary.

Baroness Warnock: I strongly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said in moving the amendment. It offers the civilised way through the dilemma. This is a very familiar case of two diametrically opposed moral opinions on which no compromise is possible. If the concept of regulation, registration and, therefore, monitoring of what happens in the field is accepted, both sides of the moral dispute are likely to be more satisfied, if not absolutely satisfied, with the amendment. The concept of good practice is incorporated in the registration proposal.
	The only respect in which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is trivial. He says that it is an odd approach first to provide in Clause 1 that hunting of mammals is an offence and then to give the exceptions. On the contrary, it is a common approach. Lawyers have a word for such a concept—perhaps defeasible. The same principle was observed in the very different circumstances of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, where the clauses on using live embryos for experiment and research provided first that it was an offence to use live embryos for research, with the regulations, time limits and other provisions coming next. That seems to me to be the essence of what is proposed in this amendment. It emphasises the extreme centrality of the concept of regulation. It is not an added something or other, it is the whole reason why the hunting of mammals with dogs is to be, in certain specified circumstances, permitted. The assumption is that unregulated hunting would be wrong. I admire the way the Bill will come out if this amendment follows Clause 1 and I strongly support it.

The Earl of Onslow: First, I unreservedly apologise to the Minister if I got too cross with him in the previous exchange. I am quite happy to have got cross, but not too cross.
	On this particular issue of the amendment, let us assume for the sake of argument that it is just within the bounds of possibility that the Committee agrees Clause 4, or rather Amendment No. 4—"Clause 4" was a lovely Freudian slip. Can we then have an agreement from the Minister that the Government will accept the new clause, even if they may not like it, and that he will address his mind to making it better than it is at present. In other words, assuming that the amendment is carried, can we have an undertaking from the Minister that he will make sure that the new clause will be as good as it can be, even if he does not like it in the first place? I hope the Minister follows my meaning.

Lord Alli: I have never spoken in a hunting debate and after the first amendment I did not think I would ever participate in one again. I have listened to and read patiently much of what has been said in this House, in the other place and in the media. I have heard good sound arguments for and against hunting put with equal passion and vigour and the one conclusion I have drawn is that to believe this is a simple issue is very naive.
	This debate, distilled into its simplest form, is about a person's right to kill an animal, which would otherwise have been destroyed, for pleasure versus the state's right to curb an individual's liberty using the criminal law. It is a question of individual freedom versus the views of the majority, not simply cruelty versus liberty. These are not simple questions and we in this House should not believe that there are simple answers. Simplicity is for the headline writers of the tabloid newspapers or the television news bulletins but not for this Chamber.
	What we have before us today is an amendment that says to the other place, "Think again. Think again about a system of regulation before you take that final step and deprive our fellow citizens of a freedom they currently enjoy".
	Ours is a complex system of government and law making, but this House does have a unique role; my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton referred to it. It can say to the other place, "Think again". Indeed part of its very purpose is to do just that. It is for that reason that I shall be supporting this amendment today. The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said about the arguments put forward on the grounds of civil liberties:
	"I know that a number of Members of your Lordships' House feel deeply, otherwise they would not be defending fox hunting. But I find those arguments particularly unconvincing and, at times, distasteful.
	To argue that the high principles of the European Convention on Human Rights—drawn up in the aftermath of totalitarianism and war—were in any sense designed to protect groups of people inflicting unnecessary suffering on frightened animals is ludicrous, as well as completely untenable in law". [Official Report, 16/9/03; col. 772.]
	Let me say to the noble Lord that I do not agree with his view. Freedom, in my view, is a precious thing. You have to want freedom very, very badly. You have to want freedom badly enough to allow two men to walk down a road, holding hands and kissing. You have to want freedom badly enough to watch British Muslims burn a Union flag. You have to want freedom badly enough to allow people to get onto horses and hunt.
	Freedom does not come cheap. It is a hard concept. You really have to work for it. It was never easy, it is never easy and it will never be easy because there is always somebody who wants to deprive us of elements of our personal freedom to make us appear more just, or simply to allow government to perform their function.
	This debate has ceased to be about facts, evidence or reason and I suspect it was probably naive to believe that it ever could have been. It is about passion and belief and that is why it is here in this Chamber, because passion and belief are involved in what we do. I will never be convinced that the fox does not feel pain when the dog rips it apart. I will never be convinced that much of animal testing is right. I will not be convinced that the treatment of a veal calf is humane. I will not be convinced that stuffing grain down the throat of a duck or a goose is right or justified. I will never be convinced that fish caught on a hook, whether or not you throw them back into the river, do not feel pain. However I do not believe that because I do not fish, you should not and that we should use the criminal law to prevent you. Equally, I do not believe that because I do not hunt, we should use the criminal law to stop people hunting.
	I have always thought that criminalising large sections of the otherwise law-abiding population is never a good idea. I say that with trepidation as I see the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her place and I refer your Lordships to the poll tax, or should I say the community charge?
	I have listened to the animal cruelty argument, which I find in part unconvincing, but in the end this Bill is not about animal cruelty. If this Bill formed part of a wider package of animal welfare measures perhaps the arguments put forward on cruelty grounds might be more compelling, but it is not.
	I say to the Committee, and particularly to those on these Benches, that I know that the hunting lobby has tried to put forward libertarian arguments before and I understand the sense of hypocrisy that you might feel at seeing those who have been among the most prejudiced and intolerant seeking final refuge in the libertarian tent. I have read speeches by noble Lords who talk of prejudice but who have resisted every piece of equal opportunities legislation and equal rights legislation and speeches by some noble Lords who think that universal suffrage is a step too far. I know it is difficult to listen to these arguments as they are deployed in a cynical and unconvincing way, but I ask noble Lords not to dismiss these arguments because of the people who make them.
	I accept completely the legitimate right of the other place to disagree with registration. If it sends this Bill back much in the form that it was received today, I suspect we cannot stand in its way. But at this stage, in Committee, I believe we have a duty, that I have a duty, given the arguments that I have put forward, to say to its Members, "Think again". It is a difficult choice: individual freedom versus the views of the majority. It is a close call. I understand why for many cruelty overrides liberty. I have wrestled with this issue but in the end, for me, liberty must have her way.

Lord Eden of Winton: The noble Lord, Lord Alli, has made a most powerful speech. He is so right to remind the Committee that the liberty of the individual is at the root of our consideration during the course of these proceedings in Committee. I do not think that I should attempt to extend the debate any longer, or to add to what he has said, because he has said it with such conviction and force, but I remind the Committee that the Government, in their press handout in September 2002, stated:
	"The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste, but on evidence on the principles of whether or not it is serving an effective purpose in managing wildlife and whether it is more or less cruel than the alternative methods currently available".
	There has been ample opportunity for consideration of both principle and evidence. The Government carefully considered the evidence, and on that basis they brought forward the original Bill that contained clauses for registration. It is that which should be reinstated in the Bill and I so agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that it is the right and duty of this House to ask the other place and especially the Government to think again.

Lord Brennan: The primary duty of this House in enacting criminal law—and this is criminal law—is to ensure that it represents the view of most of our people, that the acts in question are properly to be regarded as criminal and properly to be dealt with by the criminal court. That question involves the exercise of each of us in fulfilling a parliamentary duty of deciding whether the Bill satisfies that test. I wish to raise an issue for consideration about that question, which involves an issue of governance. On Second Reading the Minister said:
	"This is a difficult situation for the House and, in many respects, the Government".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; col 888.]
	He was right. I amend the quotation in only one regard: it is a difficult situation for both Houses.
	In a healthy democracy, it is inevitable with a bicameral system that the two Houses disagree from time to time, and very seriously disagree. Three solutions occur. First, this House could accept the Salisbury convention and a manifesto commitment and pass the law. Or, the Government could decide not to pursue the legislation, for whatever reason. We now face a third alternative used in recent times in a serious dispute between the two Houses in which it is said that a free vote of one House enables that House to prevail regardless of the Salisbury convention and regardless of the Government's position.
	I raise this as a question and have no firm conclusions to draw, but I want the House to consider this issue. We accept the Salisbury convention relating to a manifesto commitment because we interpret that approach as meaning that we have accepted not just the will of the Commons or the Government, but the will of the people expressed at a general election. Secondly, by dint of the Parliament Acts, the lower House—the Commons—has the power, should it exercise it, to force through legislation regardless of the convention. I accept that that is a democratic right that should exist, but it should be exercised with prudence. In the 80 years between the 1911 Parliament Act and 1991, including the 1911 Act, it was exercised three times. In 1991, the then Conservative government used the Parliament Act. Although I am making no comment about the integrity of my party—which has acted as it thought best—if this Bill is dealt with under the Parliament Act it will be the third in four years. That is a very serious matter for democracy for us to consider.
	Of those three, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act was a free vote and this is a free vote. As for the two others, the European Parliamentary Elections Bill was a government Bill that the Government pursued with Whipping. The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill failed in this House in 1999–2000 and the Government chose not to pursue it. In those two Whipped Bills, the Government decided what they thought best politically.
	As with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, we are dealing with a free vote. Let us consider what has happened democratically. The Government went into an election—it could be any government—with a policy to ban fox hunting on a free vote. Having got that manifesto commitment, they employed a very substantial and serious course of public inquiry and consultation. Having considered everything that they had heard, they put a scheme to Parliament, which, because I have every confidence in my Government, I have no doubt that they thought best represented the will of the people.
	If the House of Commons, by the exercise of a free vote, takes a different route from what the Government thought to be in the best interests of the people, as a democrat, I for one want that free vote to be explained to me as being taken and exercised by every MP on the conscientious basis that he or she was seeking to represent what he or she thought to be the best interests of most of our people—the will of the people. Otherwise, a free vote would be a capricious commodity in the hands of a House of Commons MP.
	Has that happened in this instance? In the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, it did. Most people agreed with the Parliament Act route when it became necessary. Do they now? Can this House or the other responsibly say that most of the people in this country want to criminalise hunting in the form of this Bill? I am quite convinced as just one citizen among others that that cannot be plausibly argued. I ask the question, because it is worth the other House noting our concern: is this a proper Bill, the correct vehicle to employ the Parliament Act? It is a very serious question.
	My noble friend Lord Graham talks about the amendments disembowelling the Bill, but they are disembowelling a Bill that has been created as a consequence of—in the Minister's word—"wrecking" his Bill. Can anyone plausibly say that, out of that disembowelled wreckage of legislative enterprise, the will of the people has been clearly expressed? I doubt it.
	When my noble friend Lord Hoyle reads the debate again when we have time, he will find that, in substance, the Bill represents the Government's position—what they thought best represented the interests of our community. If the Bill goes back to the other House in an amended form, it is not a contest of power between two Houses, but a serious, honest disagreement in which each Member of each House should look to the responsibility he or she carries to the nation, not to his or her own opinions. I applaud this attempt to reach a middle ground, to resolve disagreement in the best interests of Parliament and the country. I firmly support the words of my noble friend Lord Donoughue and I hope that, although I have put a constitutional flavour on this, it will help us to maintain a view that is correct: the way that we deal with this Bill, majority or minority, liberty or cruelty, whatever it might be, we do so for the country.

Lord Waddington: Does the noble Lord agree that there is certainly no precedent for use of the Parliament Act when this House refuses to connive at the destruction of the Government's own Bill?

Lord Brennan: I am distressed that my very old friend the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who led me many times at the Bar, has forgotten the objectivity that he used to exercise in those days. The fact is that we are not here involved in a party political debate. I have made it expressly clear that my comments were made as a democrat and not a Labour politician. I hope that the debate can continue in that vein.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: I should like to say from these Benches that the predominant view in speeches in previous debates has been to support a form of registration. I personally support the amendment and also, to a very large extent, the powerful and moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. However, I think that the principle of freedom does not stand alone but has to be qualified by other principles which are introduced in later amendments, in terms of utility, lack of cruelty and so forth.
	I shall, if I may, flag up my own view. It probably is the time slightly to adjust the boundary of what is legal and not legal in the general area of hunting and field sports. I find that I can support fox hunting. I declare an interest in that I keep a few hens. I have five. Indeed, I am tempted to adopt the unique position of wishing to extend fox hunting to urban areas where I live, because until recently I had six.
	It seems that there is a clear argument on the basis of utility to have fox hunting as part of the mix of the control of foxes. People may get a certain amount of pleasure from it, but, as long as that does not become the predominant argument, it seems to me to be perfectly possible. Human motives are often mixed. I find it much harder to justify the continuation of hare coursing. I shall come on to that later. My own view is that the principle of freedom which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, advocated, needs to be qualified in particular cases. That was true with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, where the 14-day limit was an absolutely clear barrier to the freedom of the medical profession and so forth.
	So on those grounds I wish at this stage to support the principle of the amendment. I support in general terms the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. As we move into a more multicultural, multi-faith and diverse society, as we are doing all the time, these issues of how we tolerate minority views that we ourselves would not particularly wish to advocate will arise in all sorts of areas. It seems to me that the more the criminal law can keep its limits clearly in sight and leave room for moral debate—which indeed one might have with my noble friend here—the better we will be. However, for the moment, I believe that the amendment is the right way forward. I shall vote for it.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden: I should like very much to support this amendment and to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, on one particular issue that he raised. When you can read the book you do not have to look at the crystal ball. I live in the area where a Bill has become an Act and hunting has been banned. All I would say to the Committee is that before you go ahead and completely ban hunting in England and Wales, think very carefully about those who are very uncertain about their future in my part of the world as a result of the Scottish Executive passing that Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, put his finger on it when he said to his colleagues, "Think very carefully about those involved in this work". It is work. They are dedicated people and they do not deserve to lose their jobs.

Lord Elton: While congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Brennan, on making a contribution between them of notable and constitutional importance, might I remind your Lordships that we are discussing Amendment No. 5 to Amendment No. 4 and that we have been straying very close to the borders of order?
	I rise merely, first, to support the inquiry of my noble friend Lady Byford about the advisability of Amendments Nos. 5 to 12 and 14 to 16, all of which seem to me to be plain right. Secondly, on Amendment No. 13, which addresses the issue of group registration, it really is impossible to form a view until one knows who will be registered. We have had this discussion once or twice before, but we really need to know whether it will be the 150 or 200 people following by all sorts of means—a handful of them perhaps on horses, perhaps more—or whether it is aimed at the master of the hunt, the huntsmen, the two or three whippers-in, the kennelmen, the groom at the stables or the committee which arranges the finances. Those are two quite different concepts. One of them is feasible while the other seems not to be. Keeping a record of all those who had followed on a bicycle three miles away is not feasible. We therefore need a definition of what hunting is. We have proposed inserting "intentional", but I suspect—and this is perhaps a point to return to on Report—that we need a closer definition before we can do more than nod at these amendments and then go back to the great sweeping oratory on Amendment No. 4, which I, like others, wholly support.

Baroness Golding: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and shall speak to the need for the registration of the hunting of mink with dogs. As I said in a previous debate, the Government have signed up to the European Convention on Biological Diversity, which commits them to,
	"control and eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or native species".
	Having signed up to the treaty, the Government have committed themselves as far as possible to the eradication of that very alien species, mink.
	There is no evidence that mink can be eradicated or controlled by trapping alone. Indeed, the expense and inefficiency of the use of traps have without doubt led to the spread of mink in many areas of this country. The Game Conservancy Trust at Fordingbridge recognises the problem only too well and has recently successfully tested the idea of a raft which can identify the presence of mink. Subsequently a baited trap is placed on the raft to catch the mink and the mink are then shot. Those scientists have the good sense to recognise that mink are not easy to catch by traps alone and that there will always be a need for hunting mink with hounds. They are not the only scientists to recognise that need.
	Scientists involved in the £1.6 million mink eradication scheme on the Scottish Hebrides have found themselves proved wrong by mink hounds in areas that they thought were free of mink. Indeed, the evidence produced by the scientists running the programme leads one to the conclusion that, unless trap-shy mink are recognised, and the very real need to train people in the use of mink hounds is recognised, then the large-scale and expensive eradication programme will not be successful and the £1.6 million spent will perhaps have been wasted.
	Those scientists point to the fact that the Icelandic Government rely on dogs as their primary weapon to locate mink, which are then dispatched by shooting. About 6,500 mink are culled in Iceland every year, at an average annual cost of £150,000. No one knows how many mink there are in this country but estimates vary from 18,000 to 50,000. We can only guess at the cost of eradicating them. The nature department of the Icelandic Government have all the evidence to show that mink hounds are essential for the control of mink. The Government should listen to their scientific evidence and allow hunts to be registered. In doing so, the Government would recognise their commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity. They would go some way to answering the damning report of Defra's European wildlife division on the lack of action in their commitment to the convention. I most strongly support the amendment.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I support the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Most Members of the Committee who have spoken have spoken to Amendment No. 4, which is not before us. Unless any Member of the Committee wishes to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 16, which are amendments to Amendment No. 4, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the Minister could reply and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, could indicate whether he is prepared to accept the noble Baroness's amendments.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My understanding is that Amendment No. 4 is grouped with the other amendments.

Lord Whitty: For clarity's sake, Amendment No. 5 and the rest of the noble Baroness's amendments are amendments to Amendment No. 4. But the first issue must be how we deal with Amendment No. 5 and, should the noble Baroness care to move them, the subsequent amendments to Amendment No. 4. Indeed, most of the discussion has been on the substantive amendment—that is, Amendment No. 4.
	I did not agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, but he is correct to say that Amendment No. 4, of itself, is precisely the same wording as what had been the second clause of the original Government Bill in another place. For those Members of the Committee who think that it is wise to go back to the Commons, after it rejected overwhelmingly that approach, with something very similar to the original Bill, clearly there is an argument for voting for Amendment No. 4.
	However, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was also frank enough to indicate that this is part of a package, although we have the right to vote in different ways on different parts of the package. As far as concerns the noble Lord and his colleagues who have put their names to the various groups of amendments—most of which come after Clause 5—the effect would be to change the original Bill quite substantially. At this stage, it is probably not wise for me to spell out how the subsequent amendments would change the Bill. However, if Members of the Committee buy into this clause, they are also buying into a potential strategy which does not deliver the "Alun Michael" original Government Bill, but delivers a Bill which is much wider, much more diluted and much more preserving of the status quo.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Alli and to others that there are limits on liberty. In the "Alun Michael" Bill, which has been described as not a banning Bill but a registration Bill, there were a great number of things which were banned. Deer hunting was banned; hair coursing was banned; non-registered hunting was banned; and the hunting of all sorts was subject to some very significant restrictions. There therefore would have been banning and a significant restriction on the liberty of a minority of people in the "Alun Michael" Bill. The distinction is therefore not between liberty and authoritarian limitations on liberty, but just how far one wishes to restrict liberty. That is a legitimate debate, but let us not say that it is a central principle.
	As regards the rest of the amendments tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Carlile, and my noble friends Lady Mallalieu and Lord Donoughue, if they are all carried we would move significantly away from the "Alun Michael" original Government Bill. It is also true that if the amendments before us in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, are carried, we would also move, maybe not quite so dramatically, but significantly, away from the original Bill. Effectively, the noble Baroness's amendments would allow someone to register for any species in any part of the country and be allowed to pursue hunting for any other species in any other part of the country.
	Therefore, under the terms of the original Bill—to take my noble friend Lady Golding's point—if a person was registered and had passed the utility and cruelty tests in relation to mink, that person would, in an entirely different part of the country, be allowed to engage in hunting for an entirely different species. That was not the principle of the original Bill, which was to look at registration on a case-by-case basis and judge it on the terms of utility and least cruelty.
	While the substantive amendment would be in line with the original Government Bill, the noble Baroness's various amendments would take us a significant way away from it. It is up to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, to decide whether he would be prepared to accept those amendments. Were he to do so, he would amend Amendment No. 4 away from what he originally claimed it was—namely, the basis for introducing the "Alun Michael" Bill. We shall return to the rest of his package of amendments—it is to be hoped in part, at least, this evening, but if not, next week—which, as I have indicated, move away from the "Alun Michael" Bill. In terms of the noble Baroness's amendments, we would already do that if the noble Lord accepted her amendments and Members of the Committee voted for them.
	In respect of one particular amendment, the noble Baroness asked me to clarify, yet again—or for clarification even further than I thought that I had clarified before—the distinction between those engaged in hunting and those who are followers of hunting. This was in the terms of the original Bill, although some of the provisions would read across to the Bill now before us. It is clear that in any given circumstance for a given hunt, it would be a question of fact; that is, whether a person is hunting with dogs or merely watching people who hunt. That would be irrespective of whether such people were on foot or on horseback.
	In normal circumstances, those who are hunting as part of the hunt would be deemed to be hunting under the terms of the Act. Those following, particularly those following, for example, in a road vehicle, would not be. In terms of judging whether an offence has been committed, if those people were not registered or if it was an unregistered hunt, clearly that would have to be judged on the facts of the case. In principle, those engaged in the hunt are required to be registered. Those following the hunt would not be required to be registered if they are not part of the activity itself.

The Earl of Onslow: The Minister is in danger of being "horsist". He is saying that those who follow on a horse are committing an offence, but those who follow in a car are not. I may have misunderstood, but he particularly said that those who follow are not hunting. That is what I understood him to say. He implied that those who follow in cars would be all right, but those who follow on horses possibly would not. I thought he was being "horsist"; that was all.

Lord Whitty: I carefully tried to avoid being "horsist" in this particular context. In a normal hunt there are horse people who are clearly engaged in the hunt from the word go. There may be other horse people who are, like a car, going down the lanes to catch up with the hunt or to get a view of the hunt at some different point. There may be others on foot who might be doing the same thing. There will be some forms of hunting where people on foot are clearly engaged in the activity. So it is not a "horsist" or a "carist" or a "footist" remark; it is whether one is engaged in the activity or a spectator in the activity.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that last point. From what the Minister said, I can put it into layman's terms. I am trying not to put words into his mouth. He is referring to members of the hunt staff who would normally lead and control the hunt itself. He is excluding from those participating in hunting those who are in the field and not involved in the hunt itself. I am happy if the Minister wants to come back on that point, but we need to clarify that point. It is a major issue.
	When we talked about this matter before—I have looked very carefully at what was said in another place—my understanding was that, on the whole, it is those who are involved in the activity of organising the hunt who are actually considered as hunting. Those involved in following the hunt, as hunt supporters either on foot or on horseback—it is particularly the horseback that we needed clarification on—are not involved in hunting. They are observers, or whatever else, but they are not engaged in hunting itself. I think that I have understood him to say that. I hope that I have not put words into his mouth.

Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness has not put words into my mouth, but I think that we are in broadly the same territory. It is not only those who organise the hunt, it is also those who participate as against those who are spectators.

Baroness Byford: I think that the noble Lord and I are in total agreement. I am sorry that he is perhaps not quite happy with my words, but it is those who are actually involved in the hunt.
	Time is moving on. I explained earlier to noble Lords that my amendments are probing in nature and seek to improve the Bill. I understand what has been said by many noble Lords and I should have liked to say more about Amendment No. 4 myself. However, the restrictions on time prevent me from doing so. At this stage, I do not wish to press these amendments. I shall withdraw them because it is clear that noble Lords want to consider Amendment No. 4, which would restore the Bill over which the Minister keeps slipping and referring to as "the Alun Michael Bill", but is the government Bill, set out in their words. For that reason and that one alone, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 5.

Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 6 to 16, as amendments to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]

Lord Mancroft: We have had an extensive debate, indeed, a rather more extensive discussion than I had thought. The debate has been remarkable for a number of reasons, not least because of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. The House will have listened to his remarks with great care. Having listened to his fascinating words, I wonder how on earth we could have got ourselves into a situation where we are discussing issues such as the Parliament Act on the very first day of our deliberations in Committee. Much as I appreciate the noble Lord's words—and he was absolutely right in everything he said—it can only be an indication of the muddle that possibly Parliament and certainly the Government have got into when an issue such as the Parliament Act is discussed on the very first day in Committee, before we have even considered the Bill in depth.
	It would be so much better for both Houses and for all those outside in the country who are worrying about these issues if we were able to step back and think about them in the terms expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in what I thought was a most remarkable speech. It was an example to all. It is not easy to make speeches about unpopular issues. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, has done that with great courage and his speech served as a useful guide. Noble Lords should hear such speeches occasionally.
	I was interested in what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester had to say, in particular his words about the need to improve our animal cruelty laws. Of course he was quite right to make the point; that is what we need to do. That is why we should not be dealing with a shambolic criminal Bill today when we could be spending the time in consideration of something like the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, which really would be of immense benefit to wild animal welfare in this country, a matter which the Government appear to regard as nothing of any significance. For those of us who do care about animals and are not interested in criminalising people, that is a useful piece of legislation. The time being spent by noble Lords on this Bill, both today and next week, could more usefully have been spent on seeking to put the noble Lord's Bill on the statute book.
	A number of issues have been raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, is very worried about deer hunting, while the right reverend Prelate aired his concerns about hare coursing. Those are important details and we shall come to them in due course. However, the issue before us at this precise moment is the concept of registration, which forms the heart that was ripped out of the Bill last summer in the House of Commons. By putting the concept of registration back into the Bill—the simple concept that individuals or groups can register to hunt—we would introduce a strict regulatory framework. We do not need at this moment to discuss details such as animals, places and so forth; rather the issue of registration is a concept, a theory. The Chamber would then put forward the message that it is better to regulate than to ban, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, remarked, it is better to look for a sensible, middle route than to go to the extremes in these difficult arguments. I hope that noble Lords will agree with me.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 261; Not-Contents, 49.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	Clause 2 [Exempt hunting]:

Baroness Lockwood: I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 18 under the pre-emption rule.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 1, line 8, leave out subsection (2).

Baroness Byford: These are important amendments which may take a little while to discuss—perhaps an hour—by which time the dinner debate will be totally out of line. Would it be possible, with the Committee's permission, to leave consideration of the amendments until after the dinner break?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The rules of the House state that we may break before 7.30 p.m. only when all noble Lords taking part in the debate are present. They are not here. Given that noble Lords have expressed concern about the amount of time available for the Bill, I am loath to allow an hour and 10 minutes for the dinner break business. It would be better to proceed with the debate on Amendment No. 17.

Baroness Byford: In that case, I am quite happy to proceed.
	In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall also speak briefly to support Amendment No. 18. Amendment No. 17 would remove the Secretary of State's power to amend by order a class of exempt hunting. An order made under this clause would be subject to affirmative procedure of parliamentary approval—

The Countess of Mar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but there seem to be an awful lot of sub-committees going on in the House. May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, to ensure that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, can be heard?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am grateful to the noble Countess. I am seeking not to appear too heavy-handed with the House, but I was conscious of the difficulty the noble Baroness had in being heard.

Baroness Byford: I presume the noble Baroness wishes me to continue, although I see her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in his place. I apologise to noble Lords if I was not heard—I normally have a loud voice, and will make sure that I am heard now.
	The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's power to amend by order a class of exempt hunting. An order made under this clause could be subject to the affirmative procedure of parliamentary approval for delegated legislation. This, I believe, is a Henry VIII clause that allows the Secretary of State to change the very heart of the Bill which Parliament approves. That should not be acceptable, as it would allow a Secretary of State to expand or restrict the application of this Bill and could, in effect, render a parent Act a nonsense.
	This is another probing amendment, designed to establish beyond any doubt that any change to Schedule 1 could take place only if both Houses of Parliament, not just the Commons, and independent of one another, approve this change.
	As I have said, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, to which I will return later. I beg to move.

Baroness Mallalieu: Amendment No. 18 is really a tidying-up amendment, which would insert the words "add or" in the clause. It would enable the Secretary of State to add, as well as to vary, the classes of exempt hunting. This is proposed not for any draconian or sinister purposes, which seemed to be suggested with regard to my earlier amendment, but simply to bring this part of the Bill in line with the other parts of the Government's original Bill. By adding to the classes of exempt hunting, the Bill is made consistent with what the Government had set out earlier.
	For example, Clause 17(5)(b) of the original Bill, which dealt with the determination by the registrar, stated that the registrar may,
	"add to or vary the conditions specified in the application".
	Clause 19(4)(b), which dealt with determination by the tribunal in the Government's original Bill, stated that the tribunal may,
	"add to or vary the conditions specified in the application".
	Clause 29(a), which dealt with the amendment of automatic conditions in the Government's original Bill, stated that the Secretary of State may "add a condition" to the group registration licence.
	There seems no reason that I am able to see why the change has been made in this Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why those words are not used. It seems to me that by adding them, one gives scope for alterations which may become necessary later. I should have thought that, notwithstanding all that the Minister said earlier, it is surely desirable to give some flexibility within the system which would not require amendment either by subsequent order or, indeed, by subsequent legislation.
	The amendments would increase the powers of the registrar. Given that the House has voted for registration, I should have thought that that was, in this context, desirable.

Lord Renton: The amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Byford raises a matter of parliamentary principle. It is suggested in Clause 2(2) that the Secretary of State may, by order—that means by secondary legislation—amend Schedule 1, which is fundamental and is primary legislation. The way in which it could be amended is something that we should avoid. For example, if merely foxhunting is to be dealt with in the primary legislation, the clause would enable other forms of hunting, such as stag hunting, to be dealt with as well. I really do not think that is the sort of thing we should delegate to the Secretary of State to enable him to deal with the matter by secondary legislation, so I support the amendment.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: I, too, support what has just been said and the objection in principle to the introduction of a Henry VIII clause which would give the Secretary of State power to determine what should be in the schedule, if that is what is meant by Clause 2(2). Will the Minister tell the House what really is meant by Clause 2(2)? It says:
	"The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1".
	That is reasonably clear. However, it then appears to limit the amendments the Secretary of State may make by providing the purpose,
	"so as to vary a class of exempt hunting".
	Schedule 1 contains several classes of exempt hunting, each of which is given a title which presumably defines the class. For example, paragraph 6 is headed "Falconry". What can the Secretary of State do under Clause 2(2) to vary that class of falconry? Is it the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should have the power to remove that class from exempt hunting? If so, they have not provided for that to take place in Clause 2(2), because it does not allow the Secretary of State to remove a class, but only to vary the class. If they want to allow the Secretary of State to vary the classes of hunting by removing or adding, they should say so in the text of the Bill. It is a completely obscure provision.
	What is meant by varying a class in relation to the example that I chose—falconry, in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1? Does varying falconry mean, for example, that the Secretary of State could remove paragraph 6(a)? I doubt whether that would be permitted under the provision in Clause 2(2). I cannot see what the Secretary of State can do under Clause 2(2). It looks to me like a piece of legislative nonsense that would be of benefit only to people such as myself and the other lawyers in the Chamber, who would welcome the opportunity to earn substantial brief fees from whoever cares to pay us under the cab-rank rule—which, as the Committee knows, we always follow.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Carlile of Berriew: I think I rather resent that titter from my left.
	There is an important and serious point here. The legislation that we introduce must have a meaning that those who adjudge upon it can understand. This seems to me to have no useful meaning whatever.

The Countess of Mar: In view of the speech just made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I wonder where the Minister stands and where his integrity stands, given that he has said that he will not recommend to the Committee that an amendment is accepted.

Viscount Bledisloe: As another lawyer, I share the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as to the extreme difficulty of knowing what subsection (2) means by,
	"so as to vary a class".
	Would the provision entitle the Secretary of State to remove a class completely—to say that rat hunting was no longer exempt at all? Even if the provision does not allow the Secretary of State to do that, it allows him virtually to do that, because he could say that all he was doing was varying the class by saying that rat hunting was exempt, provided that it takes place between 2 a.m. and 4 a.m. on Christmas Day. That would considerably remove the exemption. It cannot be right that, whether directly or in that sort of indirect way, the Secretary of State has absolute power to take away exemptions that Parliament has given.

Lord Whitty: It might be helpful if I explained the point of the measure, which is to ensure that we do not have to return to primary legislation if, in practice, the clauses prove difficult to interpret. We could vary exemptions, but not delete them. That would be subject to the affirmative procedure anyway, but an over-interpretation of "vary" so as to completely undermine the exemption would not be allowable under the clause.
	The second amendment suggests that we could add to the exemptions. Again, that would be a significant variation of primary legislation. It is better that we are able to vary but not to add to or subtract from the classes of exemption. It may be helpful if I spell out the provisions in writing between now and Report, so that the kind of situations that might arise are clearer. If the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Mallalieu, were prepared not to press their amendments, we might have a debate on the basis of that information at a later stage. There could be qualifications to variation rather than deletion of variation.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: On the assumption that the proposal is a considered piece of legislation, can the Minister give us some examples of the situations in which the Government envisage that the power contained in the subsection might be needed? That would help the rest of us who do not understand the meaning of the clause.

Lord Whitty: That is what I am suggesting that I write down, because I cannot immediately envisage, in relation to falconry, quite how we would do it. Those who have more knowledge of falconry than I do may be able to say that there could be a variation either to the welfare of the birds or for conservation purposes, and that we might want to alter the terms of the exemption but not to delete or add to it. That limited power for the Secretary of State—in practice, for the tribunal and the registrar—ought to be allowable in the Bill.
	I shall do as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggests, and write a letter to those Members of the Committee who are interested in the area.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In the light of an earlier misunderstanding, it might be helpful if I remind both noble Baronesses that, if Amendment No. 17 is called and agreed to, Amendment No. 18 cannot be called.

Lord Mancroft: Can the Minister think of any other examples in legislation where this type of order and language have been used? He may not be able to do that at this precise moment, but could he at some point give us some examples? It seems most extraordinary. I cannot envisage how one could vary the classes, although I can see how one can add to or subtract from them. The language seems most extraordinary. If the noble Baronesses withdraw their amendments, it might be helpful to know other examples of this type of order in legislation.

Lord Whitty: I am happy to do that, but I believe that the noble Lord will find that there are a lot of examples of power for the Secretary of State to vary particular provisions of schedules. I shall try to find some.

Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken to the amendment. My understanding is that the provision is to vary a class.
	There is a whole range of issues on which the Minister has not answered satisfactorily, but he offered to go away and think about the matter. I should like clarification from him before I decide what to do, because if he is only going to go away and write to me about it, and not have this debated or come back with some form of government words, I am not content. However, I am quite willing to give the Minister a second chance at greater clarification, because from his words I did not quite understand his commitment to us. I need to know that before I decide what to do.

Lord Whitty: I was not offering that the Government would introduce alternative forms of words. I suggested that the Chamber might be better informed in making up its mind on a free vote on this amendment if I provided a letter spelling out the circumstances in which a variation might be appropriate. In case the noble Baroness thought that it had changed my stance on these matters, I was not suggesting that we would introduce an alternative form of words to the amendment; I was simply offering information before the Chamber made a decision.

Earl Ferrers: If the Minister does not understand the wording and finds out what it means, it is possible that he may find that the words are not quite as good as they should be.

Lord Whitty: I do not want to get ahead of myself; let us see what decision the Chamber would take if I gave it a few more examples of where variation would be a desirable power.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Will the letter go to all Members of the Committee who have taken an interest in the debate? It would be helpful if we knew where we stood on the matter.

Lord Whitty: Since the noble Lord requests a letter, I shall certainly ensure that he gets one. However, the normal procedure is to write to those who have participated in the debate and leave a copy in the Library.

The Earl of Onslow: Can the Minister clear my mind? If he is persuaded by his officials that the wording is not clear, does he intend to stick with the original wording irrespective of what the advice is? As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, the noble Lord should not knowingly allow words into a Bill which he does not understand, or which he has reason to believe might be unclear. I should have thought that he had a duty to ensure that the wording of the Bill was absolutely clear.

Lord Whitty: I understand what the wording means. It means that the Secretary of State can vary the description of the exemption but not delete or add to the class of exemptions provided for in the Bill. I suggested to the Committee that we needed further clarification on one or more of those exemptions. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned falconry of which, regrettably, I have little knowledge. He asked in what circumstances the Secretary of State might wish to vary falconry without changing the basic fact that falconry is exempt.

Baroness Byford: I listened to the Minister but he did not give me hope. He gave me hope originally but then said that he would not do what I had understood from his words that he would. No message has come from his officials so perhaps the Government themselves, including the Bill team, have no idea of the answer to the question. In those circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.

Baroness Lockwood: The Question is that Amendment No. 17 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content", to the contrary, "Not Content". The Contents have it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Lockwood: I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that I cannot call her Amendment No. 18 under the pre-emption rule.

[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee begins again not before 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Personal Debt

Baroness Wilcox: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to rising levels of personal debt and its social consequences.
	My Lords, I am grateful for this pause in the consideration of the Hunting Bill which enables us to consider something almost as weighty—personal debt and its social consequences.
	The level of personal over-indebtedness in this country is a grave and deteriorating problem. The statistics paint a dreary picture. Not only is the situation severe but it is getting worse at a phenomenal rate as each month total lending to individuals increases by approximately 1 per cent. Comparing total lending in 2002 with the projected figure for 2003, the difference is a staggering £51 billion.
	What takes us further into dangerous waters is the fragility of the situation: research shows that it takes only a very small change in an individual's circumstances to turn what was a manageable debt into a major burden. On a national scale, a sharp fall in property prices or a small hike in interest rates will provoke debt to spiral yet further out of control.
	I want to speak for a few minutes about what all this means, and why we should be deeply concerned. After all, wide availability of credit has contributed to increasing our living standards, enabling people to buy their own houses, go on holidays and buy cars which they would not be able to afford otherwise. On balance, access to credit is a good thing. But poorly managed credit debts can have tragic consequences on a social level. According to citizen's advice, a quarter of its clients who seek advice on debt issues have already seen their GP to report feelings of stress, anxiety or depression. Debt puts a terrible strain on personal relationships and can lead to the misery of family break-ups. When this is multiplied by the quarter of households in the UK that feel they are in financial difficulty, the magnitude of the situation becomes frightening.
	Over the past days and weeks we have seen considerable press coverage on this issue. This will hopefully serve to encourage the Government to sit up and take note and, more importantly, to come up with an effective response. A brief glance through the newspapers over the past few days reveals a plethora of sorry tales—and that is just the tip of the iceberg. Those stories represent millions of households suffering in varying degrees from the consequences of accumulating debt that they have to struggle to repay.
	Last Thursday, as I am sure all noble Lords are aware, the chief executive of Barclays, Matt Barrett, admitted to the Treasury Select Committee in another place that he would not accumulate credit on his card as it was "too expensive". That seems to me to be an appalling confession which gets us to the heart of the issue. Mr Barrett, with his £1.7 million salary, finds the Barclaycard rates "too expensive", while his clients, many of whom presumably earn a good deal less, have to fork out these rates. Why is that the case? It is because extremely well informed credit card companies are able to take advantage of naive consumers who do not understand what they are letting themselves in for.
	Credit card companies use a range of techniques. These include: indiscriminately mailing promotional materials even to those individuals already up to their neck in debt; enticing their customers to borrow more money with sample cheques through the post; adopting confusing and misleading offers; and making it very difficult to compare rates.
	A long-term solution must be to deal with the root cause: financial illiteracy. A well informed borrower who fully understands what is at stake is confidently able to shop for his money, compare rates, and move his business accordingly. Nowadays people know how to shop for fridges, cars, clothes and food, but not yet how to shop for money. They are still grateful to be offered a loan. There are good deals out there for those who search for them. This is when the market functions properly.
	What is too common, however, is uninformed borrowing. According to a KPMG survey, 36 per cent of people have no idea or only a "rough idea" how much interest they are paying on their debts. Over 3 million households in this country are reliant on the services of moneylenders, who regularly charge in excess of 150 per cent APR for cash loans. I am worried that the Government are not doing enough to tackle financial illiteracy. At the beginning of 2003 the Financial Services Authority announced that consumer education would be a priority for the year, but despite this it devoted only a fraction of the overall FSA budget to it.
	We have seen a number of initiatives being launched and these are welcome, but what we need is an integrated, sustained campaign over a long period. The FSA will publish a White Paper outlining a national strategy for financial literacy, and I am hopeful that it will offer just that. However, I am fearful that we may have to wait a long time to see any action.
	A sustainable strategy for tackling financial illiteracy must involve the co-operation and involvement of the financial services industry, as it is in its interests to have well informed clients with whom it can cultivate long-term relationships. The rogue traders are damaging everyone in the long term. A precedent for good procedure has been set by NatWest, which funds a financial literacy centre at the University of Warwick, and is a business benefiting from the good PR that it has generated.
	So what should be done right now? Measures must be taken to promote responsible lending. I understand that the Government will publish a White Paper on reform of the outdated Consumer Credit Act. That is well overdue. When the Act came into force nearly 30 years ago there was only one type of credit card available; now there are 1,300. It seems extraordinary that the legislation has not been updated, given the rapid rate of change in the industry.
	A number of issues urgently need addressing. Existing legislation is unable to deal with hard-sell techniques, extortionate interest or the unfair treatment of people in debt. Moreover, industry practices exist that are anti-competitive, such as the early settlement regulations designed to discourage debtors from settling early.
	We need informed, responsible borrowing and clearly described responsible lending. I look to the publication of the White Paper, which I hope will make significant and speedy headway in tackling the problems. But I am not over-confident. This is the Government who have allowed the situation to get progressively out of hand. I suppose that that is hardly surprising, as that is typical of their overall attitude to money matters. Leading the way is the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, setting the worst example possible, with the Treasury on course to overspend by a phenomenal £10 billion. Whatever happened to Gordon Brown's famous prudence and, sadly, what kind of example is that to the borrowers of this country?

Lord Borrie: My Lords, not for the first time, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has done the House a service in promoting debate on consumer matters. As a former chair of the National Consumer Council and current president of the Trading Standards Institute, she has great knowledge and authority with which to speak on such matters, especially on the hardships and problems incurred by those overburdened with debt.
	The pushing of debt to those already over-committed; the monstrously extortionate rates of interest sometimes charged; the vicious power held by illegal, unlicensed, back-street moneylenders who do not depend on lawful recovery methods—all those raise problems of law enforcement and questions about the Consumer Credit Act 1974, to which the noble Baroness referred. It needs the attention that the Government are now giving it, with a view to reform. I suppose that the chief executive of Barclays was inevitably to be mentioned in the debate. He may have given the forthcoming White Paper a very useful boost.
	Many people get into debt-difficulty simply because of natural, normal risks of everyday life, such as illness, bereavement and redundancy. The key requirement is timely and realistic advice for those in debt. I declare an interest as honorary president of the Money Advice Trust, which, with the aid of numerous banks, retail firms and others, provides the back-up necessary to enable skilled debt advice to be provided to anyone who needs it. The trust's best-known role is financing National Debtline, a telephone advice service, which I remember being started many years ago by the Birmingham Settlement and which is now run on a national scale.
	In the recent pilot phase of the national scheme, that telephone service helped 26,000 clients over 12 months. However, it answered only 40 per cent of the calls received, through lack of resources. The Money Advice Trust plans a recruitment and adviser-training programme that will enable 150,000 clients a year to be helped. Helped to do what? To maximise their possible income, and to reorganise their debts to work out, with the creditors, a practical programme for repayment and getting on course again.
	The trust works with many associated bodies, one of which—the most important nationwide body, the citizens advice bureaux—was mentioned by the noble Baroness. Its advisers have been dealing with a huge increase—of 47 per cent—in the number of consumer debt problems over the past five years.
	Central Government, represented tonight by the Minister, and local authorities are playing a vital part in funding the National Debtline, grants to citizens advice bureaux, and local face-to-face advice. This evening, I hope that I can rely on the Minister to give us what is so strongly needed: a strong commitment—a medium-term commitment—to government funding which will carry with it great encouragement to the private sector to support what is needed.

The Lord Bishop of Sheffield: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity. My grandmother was a Lancashire mill worker and a lapsed Baptist. She had three categories of persons who were anathematised. In ascending order of anathematisation—if there is such a word—they were the divorced, Catholics and, finally and worst of all, those who were on something called the never-never. The never-never was a term that described those who bought now and paid later. They were anathematised because she said that people on the never-never had lost their pride. She had pride. All her children took the 11-plus examination and passed, but none of them went to the grammar school because they could not afford the uniform.
	As a student whose parents did not own a home—nor did they have a bank account—I had great difficulty opening a bank account at all. I was not allowed any sort of overdraft, and credit was simply not available. Three of my four children have recently graduated from university. Credit is still poured on them, almost on a daily basis, in spite of the fact that they owe many thousands of pounds. No one other than my wife and myself encourage savings, good budgeting or any sort of financial responsibility, and that will be a problem.
	They will cope, but I do not want to spend the couple of minutes that I have talking about my children or those who will cope with credit, whether it is good or bad. I will talk about those who unfortunately cannot cope or get credit from the usual sources, and whose level of debt and total lack of access to reasonably priced loans makes the need urgent for an integrated strategy to tackle debt among our most excluded people.
	In Sheffield, we have done three years of research through an organisation called IMPACT—Communities in Partnership for Action. It is a broad-based organisation with 27 communities in urban and suburban areas, mostly of Anglican, Roman Catholic and Methodist churches. Its research has come up with some very interesting facts and figures. One is that more money is leaving our weakest communities in payments to loan sharks than is put in through regeneration activities. If the Government are serious about wanting to create sustainable communities, they will need to fund and encourage the development of area-wide strategies to address debt, particularly in our poorest areas where, for many people, there is no alternative to loan sharks.
	As the noble Baroness pointed out, the interest rates charged by such people are quite incredible. A £300 washing machine to you or me will cost £900 to a single parent living on a housing estate who has no access to the usual sorts of credit. It is no good simply throwing the responsibility to do something about that appalling situation at the Government. Responsibility must be shared between national and local government, the faith communities, the voluntary sectors, businesses and statutory bodies, as well as the financial sector, in whose long-term interest it must be to encourage financial responsibility.
	In our work we have set up, in co-operation with one of the large high-street banks, a strategy for financial inclusion for our poorer areas. I shall recite our aims very briefly.
	The first is the setting up of a community finance initiative—a non-profit-making company. There are several examples in other places which lend money to those who cannot find it elsewhere. More than 90 per cent of the loans are returned. So much for being high-risk businesses justifying excessive interest rates. Such a company will fill the gap which some credit unions are not able to meet because they tend to be small, limited to communities which are poor and made up of people who in the main want to borrow rather than invest. An area-wide credit union makes much more sense because it can become self-supporting.
	We need to increase accessibility to credit unions by having collection points in schools. We need to encourage payroll deduction to credit unions from our authorities. We need more and better debt support and money advice. Last, but not least, and perhaps most importantly, we need a financial literacy initiative in our schools. Many young people leave school with no knowledge of how to handle finances. Some families have for generations had no experience of financial services and they do not know what to do with a bank account. It can do more harm than good if they do not know how to use it.
	It is a good thing to be a Lancastrian as Bishop of Sheffield in Yorkshire. The city is improving at a rapid rate. We are getting over pit closures and steel redundancies, but this issue is a remnant of despair that must be dealt with in our community.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for introducing today's subject. It is extremely important. I watched the news on television this morning. It was interspersed with advertisements urging me to borrow, borrow, borrow against no security. How can people resist such offers? Why cannot companies be made to ensure that people have sufficient security should they fall behind in their payments, which otherwise results in disaster?
	As the right reverend Prelate asked, do young people receive sufficient education in financial matters? Statistics appear to show that they certainly do not. It is a stated government intention for young people to go to university and they are encouraged to do so, but the debts they incur make their futures extremely perilous.
	Parents should be able to advise against spending more than can be afforded, but that is evidently old-fashioned. The idea that you do not buy anything until you have the money in your pocket is very out-of-date. Getting on the property ladder encourages even greater financial risk to young people. I join the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in asking: do not all these problems require the Government to ensure that reform of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is brought speedily before Parliament?

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for giving me the opportunity to speak publicly on a matter which has angered me a couple of times in the past year. It is the problem of how someone who is prudent with finances can fall into debt inadvertently and what can be done about it simply.
	The problem arises with the debit card. I was always under the misapprehension that one could buy goods with a debit card only if one had funds in the bank—or an authorised overdraft—and that the bank would refuse to honour a transaction if one did not have funds. One could not therefore go into debt. Not so.
	I believed that when the card was put into the machine the bank account was checked and any funds there were released to the merchant and all was well. If the transaction is small—say, £20—no check is made at that point because it is cheaper to upload at the end of the day. Let us say that an annual direct debit payment went out on the same day as one spent £20. That spend may well take the account into overdraft at the end of the day.
	I believe that the transaction should be treated like a cheque and should be bounced. The bank should say, "Right, that's it because there are no funds". Not so. The bank honours the payment to the merchant and creates an overdraft on the account of the person who is not allowed credit.
	The next problem is that the bank immediately issues a letter, which costs £25 or £30, saying, "You've been a very naughty person and exceeded your limit", and it slaps on a £60 referral charge. Suddenly, overnight, some poor person finds himself about £100 in debt. If he is a student on an allowance of about £100, probably all of which is earmarked for living on and buying books, how is he to pay it off?
	The bank then applies the opposite of an old adage: only kick a man when he is down and make sure you kick him hard enough to stop him getting up again. The next month, he will receive another £20 letter informing him that he is still overdrawn and another £60 referral charge. The debt has doubled. Oh, and of course, this is at 25 per cent unauthorised overdraft interest rates. The downward spiral is created.
	I know two people to whom that happened. One was a Russian girl. I do not know how she managed to pay off the debt, because she had terrible trouble. Every time she paid it off, the bank made sure it sent another £20 letter to take her overdrawn again. That went on for a long time until someone eventually bailed her out.
	It also happened to my son. Having been briefed by me, my son telephoned the bank. He gave them an earful, threatened to move his account and pointed out that while they were trying to get students to sign up to their accounts they were about to lose a good customer who had been with them for many years. At that, they took fright, refunded the money and he went into credit. We learnt a good lesson from that.
	The simple answer to the problem is to make such practices illegal. When debit cards are involved, the banks must take the risks. If they do not check the account immediately a transaction is made, they must take the risk. They may wish to treat it like a bounced cheque relating to that amount, but the charge should be limited to a maximum of the £1 or £2 it costs them to generate an automatic computer letter. That is automatically posted, without a check taking place, to the account holder and it certainly would not cost £25 or £30. If it did cost that, I should be delighted to lend them my consultancy services to try to solve some of their internal problems.
	I do not see why the procedure should not be limited so that transactions can be kept within bounds and people do not fall ever further into debt. That can happen and something should be done about it.
	My last point is that the problem may worsen. One matter that has been raised in relation to electronic money is the Common Electronic Purse Specifications—CEPS—system. I now learn that that is unlikely to be implemented. It was a European standard which it was hoped would get off the ground, but there is no particular commercial reason to launch it. As local authorities are trying to find ever cheaper ways of making small payments, they may be looking at EMV standards for doing so. Again, that would involve transactions being taken off line and not knowing exactly whether a person had credit at the centre to cover those transactions. Therefore, that could become a bigger problem in the future, and I simply flag it up as a warning.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I declare an interest as the author of a book on this subject and also as a long-standing member of the Jubilee 2000 Coalition and the Debt on our Doorstep campaigns on this subject. I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for ensuring that this debate took place. I am grateful for all that she said and the facts that she put before the House with the possible exception that, in all honesty, this problem has escalated over the past several decades under both parties in government. Therefore, I do not believe that responsibility for it can be laid entirely at the door of the present Government. That does not mean that we can all wash our hands of it as though it were the tide coming in.
	I am very grateful to all those who put the facts before us. I also believe that we should pay a very warm tribute to the kind of initiatives that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, spoke about and those which the right reverend Prelate, my colleague the Bishop of Sheffield, also mentioned.
	We have reached the situation where a major social problem requires serious attention. However, I wish to raise two matters in an attempt—I hope that it will be an acceptable attempt—to widen the parameters of this debate. I do not believe that we can automatically assume that the grandmother of the right reverend Prelate was wrong and that we have made great progress in every respect on this matter. The fact is that our society's profligacy and readiness to accept indebtedness would have horrified our grandparents. But it would have horrified not only our grandparents; in their originating documents, the major religious traditions within which we live are all very serious about the issue of usury.
	It cannot be right that we attend only to the problems of the poor and those who are not coping when, as the right reverend Prelate said, the real issue may concern the people who are coping. We now live in a society in which not paying for something when you acquire it is a virtue. That is a serious matter. We also live in a society in which borrowing and indebtedness are now compulsory, and we must not underestimate the way in which that educates both those who enter upon those debts and those who watch them that that is an appropriate way to behave. Those of us who consider that we do cope with this matter need to take responsibility for its effect on those who are then led into situations with which they cannot cope.
	Mortgage and personal debt have escalated over the past three or four decades by several hundred per cent, and that is a very serious matter. Therefore, I urge those who are coping to take serious responsibility for this situation. I also urge the Government to attend to the volume of indebtedness as a whole and to question whether it is sustainable in our society.
	However, my main point is that the religious traditions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are clear that the people who need to be regulated and controlled are not the debtors but the creditors. They are in the greatest danger of behaving in oppressive and unacceptable ways. Quite apart from the initiative that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, proposed in relation to the banks, I suggest that it is inappropriate for people to be able to recover debts through the court system when they charge oppressive rates of interest.
	I commend to the Minister the possibility of including in the White Paper the provision that those who charge over an agreed rate of interest, which obviously would need to be discussed, should not be able to recover the debt through the courts. I propose that, first, because not only would it obviate the use of the criminal law, except in cases where people resorted to criminal activity, threatening behaviour and violence in order to recover debts, but it would prevent the use of the criminal law to set interest rates, which, frankly, I believe is likely to be considered impossible. Secondly, as a matter of principle, I find it objectionable that my, and your Lordships', taxes should be used to fund institutions—namely, our courts—for the purpose of enabling people to exact disproportionate rates of interest from poor, vulnerable and defenceless people.
	Therefore, I suggest that we need to attend not only to the needs of the poorest, although that is extremely important, but to the escalating acceptance of indebtedness as a way of life. That includes the huge volume of advertising literature and television advertisements on the matter that come our way. We also need to attend to the way that the institutions in our society do not protect the poor but, instead, protect people who engage in an activity which socially is utterly undesirable.
	We need to address those kinds of matters. They concern some of the issues brought before us by those who have drawn attention to the poor and the vulnerable. We also need to address our social consciousness. We have come so far from the world of the right reverend Prelate's grandmother, and indeed of my grandparents, that we are in considerable social danger. I refer not only to the social danger of the poor, but to the social danger of us all.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for initiating this debate on an extremely important issue. She gave a number of examples of the scale of the problem of personal debt. I want to add one other. Figures announced by the Building Societies Association yesterday show that advances during the past year have doubled over the previous year. That is another example of what is a truly remarkable rise in personal debt.
	At the moment it would be slightly premature to claim that we face an overall crisis of indebtedness, but we have undoubtedly reached a situation in which many people are becoming extremely vulnerable to even a small adverse change in their personal financial circumstances—and this is a time when the Governor of the Bank of England has made it abundantly clear that the next change in interest rates will almost certainly be up rather than down.
	The question that we are debating is the extent to which individuals should be protected by policy from over-borrowing. I would certainly not wish to return to the rigidities that applied to borrowing for a mortgage, for example, when I first took one out some 25 years ago. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that access to credit is, in principle, a good thing. Equally, I believe that the balance has tipped too far the other way and it is simply too easy for people to ratchet up unsustainable levels of debt, often as a result of highly aggressive and misleading marketing.
	What should be done and who should do it? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield gave a long list of those who have a responsibility for dealing with the issue. I want to deal with some of the bigger players. Obviously, the banks and the financial services providers have a major responsibility. The Bank of England has a responsibility for the overall financial stability of the economy. The FSA has a major responsibility, not least given that one of its major remits is to protect the consumer as far as financial services products are concerned. The Government have a major responsibility, both directly via their responsibilities at the Treasury and the DTI, and indirectly in giving a lead to the FSA and the Bank of England.
	On what should be done, I want to make a number of proposals that draw on work carried out by my colleague in another place, Vince Cable, some of which has already been referred to by other speakers. First, there is clearly a major problem with exploitative loan sharks. We need tougher legislation to tighten up the issuing and monitoring of credit licences along with harsher penalties for those guilty of bad practice. Secondly, we should outlaw completely any early settlement penalty to encourage the clearance of debt ahead of schedule. It is bizarre that in many cases it is virtually impossible to clear debts sensibly and quickly.
	All credit products should be brought within the regulatory control of the Financial Services Authority. Last year when dealing with problems with the split capital investment trust sector, I found that there were major problems concerning the boundaries of what the FSA did and did not cover. That meant huge problems in seeking redress for individuals who had been mis-sold products. At the moment one of the biggest lacunae is equity reversion schemes; the FSA is planning to bring them under its control, but it is taking far too long about it. I believe that the Government should publish strict measures and proposals for responsible lending and that lenders should be required to follow them. Interest rates on store cards should be policed far more vigorously by the competition and trading authorities.
	I have two proposals on the issue of the tidal wave of unsolicited mail that we currently receive. First, each mailshot should contain a credit health warning that should explain to potential purchasers the impact of the commitment if interest rates change, particularly if they rise. Secondly, there should be a ban on the practice of sending unsolicited application forms for credit cards, loans and other credit products.
	On the broader issue of financial literacy, which is a huge problem, I strongly support the FSA in attempting to get to grips with the issue, but more resources are needed. I hope very much that the tentative plans for a levy on the financial services industry will be followed through, that such a levy will be raised and that we shall have adequate resources generally, and for schools, to explain to people the nature of products that they may buy.
	The level of personal debt requires a co-ordinated response by government, with active Bank of England and FSA support. To date, such a response has been wholly lacking. We look for a reassurance from the Minister this evening that the forthcoming White Paper on consumer credit really will get to grips with the issues, and, more generally, that the Government will give a clear lead to all the financial institutions to help to bring personal debt back to a more sustainable level.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, there could not be a more timely debate. My noble friend was too modest to say, but her credentials for bringing forward this debate are impeccable. She is a former chairman of the National Consumer Council and well aware of the issues that she described so tellingly in her opening speech. In fact, she gave such a clear exposition of the problem, with facts and figures and what she called the "sorry tales" of distress and fear and anxiety, especially among the poorest, as the right reverend Prelate said, that I shall not repeat them.
	My noble friend and other noble Lords have focused on the question of financial education. We wondered what the Government's response would be to this problem, so we asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer: what steps are the Government taking to educate the population on financial products? The reply was crisp. It stated:
	"Consumer education in relation to financial services is a matter for the Financial Services Authority".
	Mr Boateng, who perhaps had just read the Government's latest handout, How to Wash your Hands, elaborated. He said,
	"operational decisions reside with the relevant institutions and individuals".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/03; col. 52W.]
	One government Minister went a great deal further in explaining the Government's view on the issue. Her viewpoint goes well beyond complacency or caveat emptor. For her the growth of consumer debt is a source of pride, a mark of a strong economy. Ruth Kelly told another place:
	"Growth in household debt reflects strong fundamentals with a robust labour market, low interest rates and strong gains in housing wealth".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/3/03; col. 21W.]
	She gets much closer to the reality of why the Government are apparently so relaxed about the issue. Without the build up of debt that we have seen, the reality is that Britain's economy would be in exactly the same position as Germany—that is, near recession. The reason is that there has been, as has been described today, an enormous build up of borrowing against property to fund pensions or purchases.
	Today, 50 per cent of all mortgage lending is by homeowners borrowing against the value of their existing homes. They are called mortgage equity withdrawals, home equity release plans or other exotic names, but their real name is a second mortgage. So, 50 per cent of all mortgage lending is on second mortgages. That 50 per cent of all mortgages incredibly accounts for 50 per cent of the rise in consumer spending, which means that—although the Minister will shortly deny it—the Government have a vested interest in the continuation of the present build up of debt.
	So, if the Government have no interest in addressing the problem, who is going to deal with it and resolve the many anxieties that my noble friend and other noble Lords have described?
	The Financial Services Authority has a statutory duty given to it by Parliament to promote public understanding of the financial system. The interesting thing about that duty is that it is not subsidiary to its other duties. Its other duties include market confidence, the protection of consumers and the reduction of financial crime. But the duty to promote public awareness of financial products and to promote education about the system is equal in weight to its other duties: it is not subsidiary.
	Sir Howard Davies has stressed the need to improve the financial literacy of our children in what he says is a big way. However, as many noble Lords said, the FSA's budget for teaching personal finance in schools is only £300,000, with only a further £2.7 million for adult learning. How can the FSA possibly fulfil its duty with such money?
	What about the financial services industry? The noble Lord, Lord Newby, was pleased that it was recognising that the quid pro quo for a lighter regulatory touch was for it to fund that effort, and that financial literacy is the key to long-term trust in its practitioners. It has taken many good steps. There is the innovation of an honesty box to appear in marketing literature on credit cards, setting out more clearly the actual rates being charged—perhaps at some stage containing a common definition of APR and a common method of calculating interest. That is all most welcome. Banks such as the National Westminster have done great work in touring schools and providing basic knowledge of money management.
	However, after spending some time researching this speech, I must agree with the chief executive of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, David Harker, who said:
	"Despite a multitude of governmental and other initiatives to tackle debt problems, these are piecemeal, poorly co-ordinated and there is a real danger that they will not be effective".
	I hope that I am not intruding on the Minister's time; I shall try to be brief.
	I do not blame the Government for that. When I look back on the work that we did in Parliament on the Act, I do not recall that we ever had a debate on the educational aspects of the FSA's work. We concentrated much more on the regulation of creditors, as the right reverend Prelate said. Perhaps we missed a point to which we should return.
	Let me end by saying this to the Minister: the Labour Party's manifesto in 2001 said:
	"Poor education is a cruel injustice",
	and,
	"Our approach will be to intervene where there are problems".
	There are now problems in this area, as the debate clearly shows.
	I recommend to the Minister that he reads what is perhaps the most iconic Education Act that we have ever had in this country: the Butler Education Act 1944, which established the school system in our country. Something of that level is required to deal with the problems described by all noble Lords who have spoken.
	Anyone who smokes a cigarette, drinks too much or gets overweight is aware of the risks that they are taking with their health. What this timely debate shows—as my noble friend Lady Wilcox said—is that we now need the same level of awareness of risks to financial health.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for raising this important topic, which is an issue of major concern to the Government. Total outstanding borrowing, including consumer credit and mortgages, stands at £888 billion, which is made up of unsecured consumer credit of £166 billion and secured mortgage debt of £722 billion.
	Economic stability is delivering rising prosperity and record employment, underpinning robust growth in consumer spending. Our stable macro-economic framework has delivered sustainable economic growth, with the growth in borrowing reflecting the strong fundamentals of the UK economy. Unemployment is at its lowest since the 1970s and interest rates are at their lowest level since 1955. Moreover, the UK is the most developed, most competitive and largest credit market in Europe, accounting for about one third of all EU transactions. All that means that consumers of today are able to service higher levels of debt than ever before.
	Although most consumers manage their credit successfully, a quarter of households have experienced financial difficulty. Not all financial difficulties become serious, but a significant minority—about 7 per cent of that group—can be classed as being over-indebted. The majority of financial difficulties can be attributed to unexpected changes in circumstances, such as redundancy, job loss, long-term illness, divorce, bereavement or having a child.
	I very much welcome the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester that this is a long-term issue. I believe that that is right. It should not be considered that this situation is fuelled by government improvidence. I believe the problem is that after such a lengthy period of sustained growth people may be forgetting the lessons of what happens when there is a recession and therefore a down-turn in the economy with all the problems that brings. There is a danger that the folk memory does not remember what has happened in previous situations and that, while the level of debt can be coped with at this time, there can be problems if there is a serious down-turn in the economy.
	I understand how provoking it must be to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that we have economic success, but the fact is that the causality works the other way round. The economic success is to some extent fuelling the issue of consumer debt. As I have said, this is an issue which the Government take very seriously. We are working to address the problem of personal debt. We will publish a consumer credit White Paper later in this calendar year. It will lay out policy on tackling over-indebtedness and on updating legislation to ensure that it is relevant to today's market, providing effective protection for all consumers.
	In answer to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, about financial literacy, we are taking steps to empower consumers by improving their financial literacy. The Department for Education and Skills funds Skills for Life, the Government's strategy to improve adult literacy in England. Similar programmes are run in the devolved regions. The FSA will shortly publish principles for a national strategy for financial capability and this strategy will present a co-ordinated approach to the provision of education, information and generic advice on financial services.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield raised a very important point, which is the question of access to credit in poorer communities. The Government will continue to look at measures to address the need of low income groups for affordable credit. That will include improving the Social Fund administration, guidance and training to enhance the fund's ability to help those on low incomes to manage their finances and also working with credit unions to identify options for future reform.
	The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, raised the question of debt advice, which is clearly another extremely important aspect of this problem. There are also government initiatives to help consumers once they have problems. There are government funds, free debt advice providers, including £17.l million to Citizens Advice and £2.8 million to Citizens Advice Scotland per annum. There is a National Debtline which gives all consumers free, easy access to debt advice by telephone and access to debt repayment plans.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that we shall be addressing the issue of future funding of telephone debt advice in the White Paper. The Legal Services Commission is running pilot schemes for people qualifying for legal help who find themselves in need of free debt advice. The findings from these pilot schemes and from the operations of the National Debtline are informing considerations of the Government's future role in the provision of such services.
	This point was not raised in the debate, but the Government also recognise that over-indebtedness can be a disincentive to entering employment. From April 2004 a new £3 million fund will allow Jobcentre Plus managers to improve access to debt advice in areas where provision is limited, enabling lone parents, partners of the unemployed and other non-jobseeker's allowance benefit customers to get help before they take up work. The Scottish Executive has invested £3 million a year for three years to supply additional frontline specialist money advisers in Scotland.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester raised the question of enforcement. The Government are also looking at measures aimed at creating the right balance between better enforcement methods and safeguarding debtors. The Department for Constitutional Affairs' White Paper Effective Enforcement includes proposals allowing court users to get what is due to them while protecting debtors, who generally cannot pay, from oppressive pursuit of their debts. The review by the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Insolvency Service of individual insolvency procedures looks at measures to rehabilitate debtors and provide protection from enforcement action while they make reasonable payments towards their debts.
	We recognise that a minority of borrowers suffer from the impact of credit at what appear to be extortionate interest rates. We are not persuaded, however, of the case for setting interest rate ceilings, which could have adverse consequences for some of the most vulnerable and could be subject to manipulation by unscrupulous lenders. But we will make proposals to deal with extortionate credit in our White Paper.
	The consumer credit White Paper will contain further measures to promote responsible lending. The Office of Fair Trading has published guidance on debt collection and debt management practices that are regarded as unfair and would call into question fitness to hold a consumer credit licence. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is also considering guidance that, it is hoped, will enable most debt cases to be resolved without recourse to the courts.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked whether we were moving quickly enough on the consumer credit White Paper. As I said, we will publish the White Paper later this year. It will lay out government policy on tackling over-indebtedness and update the consumer credit legislation to ensure that it is relevant for today's markets, providing effective protection for all consumers.
	Key aspects of our review of the Consumer Credit Act have addressed keeping loan sharks out, tackling unfair lending practices and the quality and quantity of information available to consumers looking for credit. The Government recognise the importance of transparency in the consumer credit sector and support only measures that give consumers the information that they need to make informed choices.
	The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised an extremely important point and a case that seemed grossly unfair at first sight. Lenders should be able to recover legitimate costs when customers go into default on their accounts. But we recognise that, in some cases, charges and interest on charges can be excessive and fuel increasing over-indebtedness. We will make proposals to address that in the forthcoming White Paper.
	The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised the question of mortgages. In most cases, mortgages are subject to self-regulation under the Mortgage Code Compliance Board. First charge mortgages will be regulated by the FSA, from October 2004, and second charge mortgages will be regulated under the Consumer Credit Act.
	The burden of personal debt cannot be underestimated. It is a serious and important issue. Today I described briefly the Government's approach. Further detail will be set out in the consumer credit White Paper before the end of the calendar year. The Government remain very concerned about the social problems caused by over-indebtedness and are particularly aware of measures needed to aid the more vulnerable members of society. We will continue to work on all measures aimed at ensuring prosperity for all.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn for two minutes.

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The sitting was suspended from 8.39 to 8.41 p.m.]

Hunting Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Hunting: assistance]:

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (1).

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: I speak to both Amendments No. 19 and No. 21, which are grouped together. The amendments omit the two subsections from Clause 3, which provide that a person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land that belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under Clause 1 or if he knowingly permits a dog that belongs to him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence under Clause 1.
	I did not speak in the earlier part of this debate, before supper, because I knew that I was to move these amendments and would have an opportunity to speak now. I do not take the generous view about this Bill that has been heard from some noble Lords during the past few hours. I think that this Bill is entirely based on prejudice. I think it has precious little to do with the fox, or whether it is killed in the most cruel or the least cruel way. It is based on the prejudice of believing that those who follow a hunt are simply doing so, as toffs in pink coats with top hats and looking pretty funny, in order to get pleasure out of killing for fun.
	That is an absurd misconception, but it is a prejudiced belief that is held by a number of people who live in the cities and towns. It is clearly held by some 300 Labour MPs who were willing to overthrow the contents of a Bill that was put forward by their own Minister in order to vote for the total banning of hunting, as described in the Bill that we had before us before we amended it tonight. This is simply prejudice and in that opinion I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, who also put his name to these amendments but who is not in his place at the moment. In an extremely good article in the Daily Telegraph on Wednesday, 8th October 2003, which I would recommend your Lordships to read, he states:
	"A law supported by a majority will still be considered illegitimate by a minority if it lacks moral or rational justification. We do not accept the right of Parliament to pass any law, even if the majority wants it . . . In a complex, modern society such as Britain, which is full of minorities doing things of which majorities disapprove—in which the very concept of a "majority" is doubtful—laws must be backed by reason as well as by votes. Here is the problem. The pro-banning movement is based entirely on prejudice".
	That is a very fair statement by a Cross-Bencher who, as far as I know, has never hunted in his life.
	Where do we go from here? Foxes are vermin. They are not an endangered species. They have to be killed and killing by hounds is the quickest, most efficient and most certain way of doing that. To quote those famous words by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, it is impossible to be certain which method of killing,
	"seriously compromises the welfare of the fox",
	most. No one can ask the fox that question. However, on all the evidence, as others have said, it is reasonable to believe that the quickest, most efficient, most certain way of killing a fox is killing by hounds, which happens very quickly indeed. Prejudice should not be the basis for law. Turning away the best available means for killing foxes is not a reasonable action. From that, I proceed to examine the two specific amendments.
	I am very grateful to see the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his seat because he asked a number of questions during the opening debate this afternoon. He asked how one decides, when a person releases a dog, whether it is for the purpose of hunting—whether the person is committing a criminal offence. The noble Lord did not get a proper answer from the Minister. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made rather the same point about releasing a dog in a park knowing that foxes are in the vicinity. Is that an offence? We started off with the dog owned by the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, which went into the broom looking for a mammal, then we moved on to other dogs all possibly causing their owner to commit offences that were not intended.
	Will the Minister tell us the purpose of Clause 3? The common law rules on secondary liability are widely known. They are very well established common law rules and it is draconian to go beyond them. I am not a lawyer, but I remind the Minister of the common law rules on secondary liability. The definition in chapter 18 of Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, states that,
	"someone who aids, abets, counsels or procures the commission of an offence by someone else is guilty of 'the like offence'.
	The distinction between joint principals and principals of secondary parties can be very hard to draw".
	With that common law definition, why is Clause 3 in the Bill at all? Either it does not spread the net wider than the usual principles, in which case there is no point to it, or it does spread the net wider, in which case why? What is the purpose of creating the crime in Clause 3? What is it about hunting that justifies a wider net being spread, especially as the supporters of Clause 3 have apparently decided that the offence is not serious enough to justify imprisonment? I know that my noble friend Lady Byford will speak later about the question of knowing about an offence, but, on the broad issue, it is extremely important to resolve the lack of definitions and clarity and the question of why Clause 3 is included in the Bill. All criminal offences ought to be clearly defined. That leads on to the other practical point.
	Clause 3 uses the words,
	"land which belongs to him".
	However, the definition of that phrase in the Bill is very wide indeed. The land belongs to him if he,
	"owns an interest in it . . . manages or controls it, or . . . occupies it".
	The definitions are drawn so widely that they would capture those who had only a nominal, indirect or transient interest and involvement in the land. That is very unfair. Someone with a minority interest in the land in question might strongly object to its use for hunting but be unable to prevent it.
	For the purposes of the Bill, land is regarded as belonging to a person if he "occupies it". Again, however, although someone is a tenant and might personally object to the land being used for hunting, would he be liable to prosecution if the landowner allowed that land to be used for hunting?
	What about a family who take a holiday cottage on a short-term let? If they take no positive steps to prevent dog walkers strolling across the land and the dog slips the lead, perhaps like the dog of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in order to pursue a cat that is "living wild", an offence would arguably be committed under Clause 3. The short-term tenants would have permitted other persons to use the land to hunt. It seems to me that this clause is inevitably going to lead to a very wide range of misconceptions, arguments and disputes about whether or not a crime has been committed. The possible misinterpretations are endless.
	Finally, the provision is totally unenforceable. One could never believe that the police or magistrates would ever be able to go about the task of enforcing this clause. There are 133,600 square miles in total of registered hunting land in this country. Can anyone think that the police or anyone else will be able to ensure that Clause 3 as drafted is obeyed throughout all of those square miles? Clause 3 is a bad and unnecessary part of a bad Bill. I very much hope, therefore, that the Committee will consider omitting Clause 3(1) and (2). I beg to move.

Baroness Turner of Camden: I must tell your Lordships that if this amendment is agreed to I may not call Amendment No. 20 because of pre-emption.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am very happy to support my noble friend; my name is on the amendment. He mentioned the question of enforceability, which reminded me of a question that I asked the Minister earlier this afternoon. Was he saying in the course of his Second Reading speech that unenforceability was a matter about which legislators did not need to have any concern? It seems to me the most extraordinary thing to have said. It was only a fragment, but it was a fragment in his speech which did not make any sense to me at all. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would strengthen the case for what my noble friend has said by admitting that what he said on Second Reading about unenforceability was ill-judged.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: Without these amendments this is surely the law for compulsory sneaking, is it not? If one looks at Clause 3 and considers the following set of circumstances, that must be the case. In my example, a landowner does not permit his land to be entered by the person who commits an offence against the legislation. He finds the person on his land. Under Clause 3(1), he will still be guilty of,
	"an offence if he knowingly permits land",
	which has been entered without his permission to be,
	"used in the course of the commission of an offence".
	What is he supposed to do? If the purpose of the proposed legislation is to be given effect, he is virtually required to telephone the police to inform them that he thinks an offence is going to be committed on his land—even though he may be a person who is totally opposed to the legislation, has no desire to report people who may be his friends to the police, and knows perfectly well, because he has spoken to any number of chief constables, that they believe the law is unenforceable in any event. It is another example of how ill-thought out the Bill is.
	As I see it, there is another legal problem, for which I should be grateful for an explanation from the Minister if I am wrong. What is the criminal state of mind? What is the mens rea required for an offence to be committed under this proposed section? From the way in which the legislation is drafted, it appears that the mens rea consists of knowingly permitting the land to be entered or knowingly permitting the land to be used. It is not clear whether it is the intention of the Government that in order to commit the offence guilty knowledge must apply to both limbs of the clause: that is, first, knowingly permitting the land to be entered or used, and, secondly, knowing that an offence against the legislation is to be committed.
	If that is what is intended, why has the legislation not been drafted in a way which everyone understands? On the other hand, if the legislation is deliberately drafted in this way, leaving open the interpretation that an offence is committed simply if the land owner permits the land to be entered or used—even if he does not know that there is to be a commission of an offence under the legislation—it is simply an unfair law which no sensible Parliament should allow to be passed.
	After all the time that the Government have had to consider the legislation, we are left with another bad example of a lack of clarity. It is with those points in mind that I propose to support all the amendments if given the opportunity.

Lord Northbrook: I support Amendment No. 19, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. I am unclear on another point in Clause 3(1), which states:
	"A person commits an offence if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him to be entered or used in the course of the commission of an offence under section 1".
	Under Clause 10, there is an offence by a body corporate which states:
	"This section applies where an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate with the consent or connivance of an officer of the body".
	I should have declared an interest as a landowner. There are situations where the land is held in trust by trustees. There is an inconsistency here. What is the situation if trustees who hold land rather than individuals or body corporates permit hunting to be allowed on the land? That is another complication of this clause.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: When the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, moved the amendment, he said that he feared the Bill was borne out of prejudice. I fear that he is right; namely, that it is a Bill borne out of prejudice. That is very dangerous. Prejudice against a minority has no part in decent democratic legislation. The problem is, once one Bill has been passed as an act of prejudice, exactly where will it stop?
	Let us look at the history of this Bill, which we touched on earlier today. The Labour Party manifesto stated that a Bill to ban fox hunting would be introduced into the Commons and would be put before Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, that Bill to ban fox hunting has now become a Bill to ban the hunting with dogs of all wild animals. Beagle hunting is to be banned, as is any form of hunting with dogs. Already, through prejudice, we have expanded the Labour Party commitment that was put before the electorate and on which the electorate voted. So the Government and the House of Commons have taken liberties with the mandate they were granted. They were granted a mandate to ban fox hunting, but in fact they have sought to ban virtually everything to do with hunting with dogs—including even preventing people chasing foxes out of their gardens in our towns and villages.
	Where do we go from here? There are people who are already intimidating fishermen on our riverbanks because they do not believe that wild fish should be caught on the hook. Sooner or later, are we to see a ban imposed on angling? Martin Salter, my MP in Reading, voted for this Bill, but he is a keen angler. He needs to watch out, because there are some who seek to ban angling.
	Many people certainly want to ban shooting. They do not believe that pheasant, partridge and snipe should be bred and then released into the air for people to shoot at with pellets from a shotgun. They think that that is cruel. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is in his place. I believe that he has a number of stags on his estate. Many people would like to prevent him and many others shooting stags. Finally, there are many people who believe that the Grand National is cruel. So where are we going to stop?
	Perhaps it sounds a little far-fetched, but some 50 years ago, a Labour Government would not have dreamed of introducing a Bill to ban hunting. They would have believed that to be completely wrong and an interference with the rights of people to pursue a sporting activity that they had enjoyed for over 300 years. Clement Attlee would not have dreamed of introducing such a Bill.

Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Would he be interested to learn that when I entered the first of my two fights to be elected to Parliament, my opponent was a Labour Member of Parliament who was a Master of Foxhounds?

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, ever so gently, that we are in Committee. He has betrayed a slight tendency to drift back to Second Reading.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not believe I was doing so. I would not have dreamt of doing so if I thought I had been doing so. All I have done is to take the text of the introduction to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, and to draw the conclusions that I have drawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was overly gentle with the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry. He, too, transgressed.

The Earl of Onslow: I shall try not to transgress.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have not quite finished. I was being hounded—if I may put it that way—by the noble Baroness, who is trying to act as a chairwoman. That is very dangerous in this House. I shall certainly draw my remarks to a conclusion. They were relevant and, through those remarks, the Committee now know that I shall support the amendment.

The Earl of Onslow: As I said, I shall try seriously not to transgress. I shall stick closely to the amendment and ask the following question. Later in the Bill it states that the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall are subject to its provisions. If we go back to the agents on the Crown land and to the officers of the body corporate, are we not in danger of getting into difficulties about that unless we are very careful about the clause?

Lord Monro of Langholm: I support this important amendment. Let me preface my remarks by saying that I was glad when, towards the end of the debates before dinner, the Minister started calling this a government Bill, which he should have done from the start. It is terribly important to realise that when a government have a majority of more than 200 in another place, whether or not there is a free vote does not matter two hoots because the Government will get their way whatever may happen. However, during my many years in another place, I never saw or heard of a government Bill such as this being overturned and defeated in another place by their Back-Benchers. It is an astonishing U-turn and one in which the Government must have been particularly disappointed.
	Throughout the debate we have heard of the importance of Burns and the Portcullis discussions. We heard every morning on Channel 4 the Minister extolling the virtues of utility and how everything would be fair. We now have a Bill that is totally unfair and totally different from the one that the Government introduced in another place.
	I am a farmer in Dumfriesshire. We have lost our hunt because of the bad decision by the Scottish Executive. Everything we forecast has happened. There are now many foxes and there has been a loss of employment, a loss to the slaughterhouse of fallen stock and the loss of coursing, to which I shall refer later.
	The Minister must consider seriously the effects on farming of the Bill that he is introducing. The Burns report indicated that 2 per cent of lambs are slaughtered by foxes—that is, 340,000 lambs, which is an awful lot of livestock. They are killed in the most horrible way—far worse than the way in which foxes are killed and which the Government are trying to prevent. I hope the Minister will bear in mind what has happened in practical terms in Scotland. It will turn out to be the same in England and Wales.
	I hope the Government will have second thoughts about what they are doing with the Bill that they have introduced, which has been shown to be particularly impractical from the point of view of the meaning of each clause. I hope that tonight we will get more emphatic answers from the Minister about what each clause means to individuals out for a social walk with dogs, and so on.
	I hope, too, that the Minister will take the trouble to explain the moral case that he puts forward. How is it morally right to hunt rabbits and rats but not foxes? How is it right for people to be prevented carrying out perfectly reasonable sporting activities on their own land with their own dogs?
	Finally, I hope that the Minister will, some time soon—he has been asked often enough—explain the position of the police. They have, at very senior level, indicated the impracticability of the legislation and the difficulty of implementing it.
	All these points go together to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton. I hope that the Minister will concede this one, if nothing else.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: I should like to put out to noble Lords, in case they have forgotten, that if the amendment is passed, Amendment No. 20 will fall. I would like to know the attitude of the Opposition Front Bench to that, particularly as substituting the phrase "gives permission for" instead of "knowingly permits" would, in my judgment, make a significant difference. We need to take note of possible happenings if the amendments go through.

Baroness Byford: Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord's question, which might help other Members of the Committee. I wish to return to the amendment in the right place. I tabled my amendment prior to my noble friend's. I rather fancy my own amendment, to be honest, but if he wished to press his, I would support it. However, I reserve my right to return to this.

Lord Palmer: I, too, support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his colleagues. It is a classic example of the complete muddle and mess the Bill really is. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, spoke about land ownership—we desperately need clarification of this. The noble Lord mentioned trustees, which often own an enormous amount of land. One must not forget that an awful lot of land is also owned by charitable trusts. That will be a major problem, and I ask for clarification from the Minister. I wholeheartedly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, a colleague of mine for many years in the other place and up here, for giving us the opportunity to concentrate on the use of land.
	There are two sides to every question. Most Members opposite, and those who take the opposite view from me, are much better versed in the operation and behaviour of hunts, in the past as well as today. At Second Reading, I said that I had heard from a number of people, as we all did—there are lobbies on both sides of the main argument which might or might not encourage people to write. I indicated then that one of the most distressing things that had been drawn to my attention was the arrogance of the hunts, time after time. They went on to people's lands, their gardens or their back doors, causing distress and annoyance, with not a word from Members opposite about how to deal with the problem. People in the locality had to live with it, because the hunt had been in existence for a long time and those who belonged to it were used to getting their own way.
	Perhaps I may read this into the record again, because until we get some honesty in acknowledging that there is a problem, the problem will remain. I referred to the hunts in,
	"the Isle of Wight and in the Lake District, Weardale and Tees Valley Beagles, Essex and Suffolk Foxhounds, Cotley Harriers, Quantock Hills, Budleigh Salterton, Shropshire, New Forest Hounds, North Shropshire Hunt, Beaufort Hunt, Wynstay Hunt, East Devon Hunt, Totnes, Plymouth, Mudbury Harriers, West Green and Newport South Wales".—[Official Report, 16/9/03; cols. 857–8.]
	Those were only a tiny few; people tell me that there are hundreds if not thousands of hunts.
	I venture to suggest that the hunts in operation have been guilty of trespass and causing distress and being bullies in their communities without let or hindrance. The Members opposite, who, as far as I am concerned, are good colleagues in the Chamber, ought to reflect that they have been negligent in their so-called defence of their communities and the ancient rights—that is, hunts—over the years.
	Whatever happens with the amendment and whatever is said under it, we have to be fair and recognise that there are nasty people about who do not hesitate to frighten people. On Second Reading, I referred to a certain individual and what she had written to me. In a roundabout way it was drawn to my attention that she had been visited, within a week of Hansard coming out, and that certain unfair and distressing words were used. That is not right. I am not saying that everyone on the opposite side of the Chamber knows that that happened; of course they did not. But they know that it does happen. If we are to have equity and fairness in this issue, we ought to be honest and recognise that there is a problem—and it is not a problem on one side alone.

Baroness Mallalieu: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, makes a good point. There can be no defence for people who are arrogant and do not respect other people's property. In recent years, with the setting up of the Independent Supervisory Authority for Hunting, there is a mechanism available to any member of the public who feels aggrieved to make a complaint. It will be fully investigated and, if it is found to be justified, there is no question but that penalties will be imposed on those responsible.
	I do not believe that any responsible hunters now behave as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, suggested. I accept that there are occasions—they have been made known to the noble Lord, Lord Burns—when trespass takes place inadvertently. In my personal experience, people go backwards to avoid upsetting their neighbours. That may be something relatively new, but it is right that it should happen, and those incidents should not have happened in the past. They have been a cause of friction.
	Part of the problem is the difficulty that many rural areas are experiencing with people who may have moved from elsewhere, who have competing interests in life and who have to find ways in which to adapt to other people's ways of life. One notable thing about the Bill and agricultural communities is that the Bill has caused serious polarisation on the issue for the first time. In the past, in rural communities, people have taken views on both sides on hunting. They may have argued and muttered about it, or they may have had open words, but they live side by side and tolerate other people in those communities, because in rural areas one has to live cheek by jowl with other people. The Bill, and the thinking behind it, is saying in effect, "We're going to tell you how to live your lives, and if we can't convince you by argument, we are going to pass legislation to make you into criminals". That is causing real division and real difficulties, not only between town and country—although it has aggravated differences there—but in the country itself, where communities should be getting on together.
	I am troubled by what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said, because he raised the matter on amendments dealing with the role of landowners. I am troubled about what is being got at by the provisions in this clause. Is it intended to put a landowner in a worse position than someone would otherwise be under the criminal law? If you aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence by someone else, you, too, are guilty of the offence. Looking at the wording of the subsection, it would appear that someone who himself does not hunt or encourage it or participate in it, may none the less be guilty if he does not take active steps to stop other people doing so on his land. I wonder where that leaves people—this will come up later when we deal with hare coursing—who have illegal hare coursing (poaching, as it should rightly be called) taking place on their estate now. Would they become criminals if they did not inform the authorities about that matter straightaway? Often there is no response when they go to the authorities as there simply is not sufficient rural policing to deal with the matter.
	I am also troubled about these amendments and about the relationship that they have to the Bill due to something that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, said which I am afraid rings a bell with me. I shall try very hard not to upset the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, by straying into Second Reading, but the noble Lord said that the measure was an attack on people. The measure is aimed specifically at landowners.
	I do not know how many of your Lordships read the debates that took place on this Bill in another place in the summer of this year. They did not make pretty reading. The issues relating to animal cruelty—the issues relating to the Bill—were scarcely mentioned. There were a number of references to people who owned land. There were references, curiously, to the injustices that had been meted out to the mining community. I say curiously because, as many of us know, it is from those communities that some of the strongest supporters of coursing, particularly with whippets, come. They are the very people who would be penalised by the Bill.
	In short, reading those debates—I do not think that I am being unfair; I invite Members of the Committee who think that I may be to read those debates—there was a refusal even to consider the adverse animal welfare implications which a ban would without question, on all the evidence, cause. It appeared that many of those who spoke, and no doubt voted accordingly in the debate, sought some kind of revenge for perceived or real past social injustice. Surely the Labour Party has grown up. Surely it was that very attitude which kept us in opposition for so many years. It was because the Prime Minister came to office saying that he would govern on behalf of the whole nation—and the nation believed him—that this Government gained two massive election victories.
	My noble friend Lord Stoddart referred to previous Labour governments. We are, of course, repeating history here because in 1949 under a Labour government with a huge majority an attempt was made to abolish hunting. The Minister of Agriculture was Tom Williams. Both he and Chuter Ede, the Home Secretary, had previously sponsored anti-hunting Bills in the 1930s. Indeed, Tom Williams had actually moved a Motion against hunting at the Labour Party conference in 1928. Yet on examining the issues they both voted against the Bill, as did the Prime Minister Clement Attlee, Aneurin Bevan, Ernie Bevin and many other Labour MPs. Tom Williams, in a speech which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, read in full to the House on a previous occasion, said then what perhaps cannot be said too often because it is still totally relevant. He said that the support for a ban was,
	"based on the false premise that its provisions would lessen cruelty; second, that the suppression of these sports without effective and efficient alternatives would lead to much less satisfactory activities; and third, [that] it would alienate the support of the rural population".
	He finished with these words:
	"Finally, I ask Members to consider carefully whether the supporters of this Bill have really justified this interference with the liberties of the rural population . . . I hope that at this moment we are not going to forfeit the goodwill we have so rightly earned, and go down to history as a party anxious to abolish the pleasures of others".
	I hope very much that this Government, who have allowed their agenda to be taken by the Back-Benchers and their Bill to be changed into one that bears no relation to the evidence that their own anti-hunting Minister found, will not find themselves tarnished as Tom Williams envisaged that a Labour government might be in the 1945 administration. That 1945 Labour administration faced up to this exact problem. They took charge and control, and ensured that their agenda and programmes were such that their achievements lasted to this day.
	In looking at the amendments, I would very much like to know whether it is intended to impose a greater penalty and responsibility on landowners than on any ordinary citizen faced with a criminal allegation.
	Also, I would specifically like the Minister's help. He may not be aware that on Exmoor, where I live part of the time, the sporting rights to a large amount of land—many thousands of acres—are owned by a limited company. That land is occupied by people who are sometimes freeholders and sometimes tenants, but none of them is in control of who hunts on their land. What is the position so far as they are concerned? Are they also likely to be made criminal, simply because they are occupiers and perhaps landowners of the land? In reality, they have no legal right to say no.

Lord Mancroft: I, too, have some concerns around the amendments. I throw my mind back to the very long hours that we spent talking about the then Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. In a whole tranche of that Bill, the obligations of landowners to welcome people—tourists, walkers, whoever—on to their land were discussed. We also debated the difficulties that landowners might face with that from damage, people coming near their houses at night and so on.
	In those debates, the wicked landowner was trying to stop people coming on their land. Now we have another piece of legislation where the equally wicked landowner has to stop a different lot of people coming on to his land. He has to let some on and keep some off. That puts two extraordinary and completely different new areas of responsibility on to landowners in a relatively short time. They do not particularly want those responsibilities, and I am not sure that they are in a position to fulfil them.
	The noble Baroness talked about the problems of illegal coursing—poaching, as she quite rightly called it. When landowners ask for help from the police and authorities, it is often not forthcoming. That is why there is so much of that type of poaching. There are other similar issues. Travellers are not such a bad problem now, but they certainly were a few years back, in terms of coming on to people's land and possibly committing crimes. Whether they were or not, the landowner had no ability to know what they were up to or even to remove them. He certainly did not welcome them.
	I wonder how landowners will respond to this new responsibility, as it is very difficult. Let us compare the Bill to the CROW Act, as it now is. We talked so much on that about access and tourism, and how marvellous it was to welcome people on to places such as Exmoor, which the noble Baroness mentioned, the North Yorkshire moors and all the other beautiful parts of England to which people want to come. Yet here we have an activity for which landowners have welcomed people on to their land for goodness knows how long, on their feet or horses, or however they wanted to come. They were sometimes not quite so welcome on their quad-bikes and in their four-wheel drives, but those difficulties occur.
	Putting aside whatever one may think about hunting from the welfare point of view, it is the ultimate access to the countryside. One reason why people enjoy hunting is that they get to see parts of the country that they would not otherwise. With one hand we are encouraging that, but with another, rather illogical hand we are discouraging it. It seems an odd thing to do.
	I, too, want to turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, because the matter is serious. There is no doubt that occasionally people behave badly. Sometimes they might be hunting people; sometimes they might be walkers; sometimes they might be football fans. During the past few years, we have constantly seen football fans, not only in this country but abroad, behaving appallingly. I am not sure that that is a reason to ban football. Rather, it is a reason to see whether we can improve the behaviour.
	I am a member of the hunting community and I have been all my life. I cannot think of another community which has recognised that it had a reputation, whether ill or well deserved, for arrogance and bad behaviour. That was one of the perceptions and, according to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, it still is. That is most sad, but regardless of what anyone may think about hunting, it is not bad behaviour.
	I have never come across a community which has made a greater effort to be seen to be welcoming and well mannered. Only the other day my wife said, "It's a frightful nuisance opening the gate for the hunt because every single person—perhaps 100 people—says good morning and thank you and they take their hats off". By the time they have all gone through, she is completely exhausted with smiling at them because they go out of their way.
	I am certain that that does not happen all the time and occasionally people say things they should not say and do things they should not do, but a huge effort has been made by this community. As the noble Baroness said, the independent supervisory authority for hunting, which has been in operation for several years, has a sophisticated complaints procedure.
	At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, read out a list of hunts he had been told behaved badly. I felt like writing to him, but then I thought, "What's the point?". I read his speech carefully because I wanted to check up on it and I can inform him that three of the hunts he listed do not exist and never have, so they probably did not behave badly. However, I know two of the hunts very well because I was Master of one and I now hunt with the other. I went to considerable trouble to telephone those responsible in order to discover whether there had been complaints and problems and whether they had trespassed. It is true that hunts do occasionally trespass—fortunately, now rarely. I took the trouble to telephone and ask, "Have you been anywhere you shouldn't have been?". Neither could think of anything they had done. However, if the noble Lord can find more details of the behaviour he mentioned, it should be and will be investigated.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: I will certainly let the noble Lord be privy to the correspondence on which I made my remarks. If people have misused the name of dead hunts, that should be seriously investigated. If I have been misled, I have misled the House on the basis of that information. I wonder how many equally honest professions will be made during the course of this debate.

Lord Mancroft: I do not know the answer to that, but if the noble Lord will let me know I will undertake to do my best. I do not for one moment suggest that he had any intention of misleading the House. Of course he did not. However, the important point is that these things happen and people do make allegations and sweeping statements. Sweeping statements have poisoned the debate and made it more difficult. The reality is that most of the issues the noble Lord raised are being addressed and will continue to be addressed, but they are not in themselves bases on which to use the criminal law to inflict one's views and ideas on people who are doing their best to behave in the best way they can every day in their activity.
	But that was not the central point of these amendments: it was to put an added responsibility on to landowners. I am uncomfortable with that. I do not know whether the same reaction applies to other crimes, but one gets the impression that there is something so particularly awful about hunting that extra penalties and measures must be taken beyond any which exists in other laws in order to restrict this ghastly and terrible behaviour. One sits through endless debates on criminal justice Bills, but it is difficult to imagine any other law that we have passed where we have said, "We've got to make sure that no one does this, otherwise they will be punished too". It is extraordinary. One gets the feeling that the whole thing smells of vengeance, and that is very unattractive.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: As a humble Back-Bencher, I must say that I was fascinated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I do not know whether it is in order in Committee to put a question to him or whether I should put it to his noble friend the Minister to reply on behalf of his noble friend or, indeed, on behalf of the Government.
	It struck me that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, gave a reasonably classic example of the saucepan calling the kettle smutty. We had wonderful images of high-handed huntsmen, huntspersons or huntspeople, or whatever one is supposed to call them nowadays, riding on their shining steeds with top hats and shiny boots "bullying lesser people"—I believe those were his words. Of course, that sort of behaviour is unacceptable, as other noble Lords have said.
	Speaking as someone who was fortunate enough to be able to give up riding on his ninth birthday and who has never had the misfortune to hunt, one agrees with the thrust of the amendment. However, does the noble Lord agree that, as a former formidable Chief Whip, he, if anyone in your Lordships' House, has been guilty of all the behaviour of which he accuses these hapless huntsmen, who, we are now assured by my noble friend and his noble friend Lady Mallalieu, no longer exist? In those circumstances, I hope that the saucepan will no longer call the kettle smutty and that the noble Lord might be prepared to withdraw his remarks.

Lord Whitty: This has been a rather wider-ranging debate on the clause than I had anticipated. I was going to comment on it fairly briefly, but I believe that your Lordships need to pause to think slightly. Before the dinner break, I momentarily had the impression that noble Lords were genuine in asking the House to adopt amendments which effectively would ask the Commons to reconsider the position in relation to the Alun Michael Bill—

Noble Lords: The original Bill.

Lord Whitty: The original Bill. But almost everything that has been said in this debate makes it clear that noble Lords who supported some of those amendments are against creating any offence at all in this area.
	Yet the amendment carried before the dinner break in relation to the registration of hunting naturally leads to the fact that there will be some non-registered hunting and some non-exempt hunting—that is, there will be illegal hunting. If there is a possibility that illegal hunting will take place, it is surely right that those who aid and abet it should be guilty of a criminal offence.
	The noble Lord, Lord Renton, suggested that we should rely on the general criminal law here. But he will know, as will other noble Lords, that many statutes make it an explicit offence knowingly to abet or commit illegal activities. That is all that this clause does. It does so in the sense of an explicit permission by a landowner knowingly to allow people to engage in illegal activity on his land. When I use the word "landowner", that is not a class attack on landowners, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, implied; it would be whoever was in a position to give authority to use the land. It might be the manager or someone acting on behalf of a charity or a trustee or it might be common land. We would not necessarily be getting at a land-owning aristocrat here, so let us get that out of the way. But it would be someone who had knowingly and expressly given permission for someone to engage in illegal activity. That is a legitimate area for statute and one that should reasonably be in the Bill.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: Would the Minister include tenant farmers in that?

Lord Whitty: Yes, if they were the people with authority over access to land and they knowingly behave in that way, that would include tenant farmers.

Lord Northbrook: The Minister appears to be drawing the definition wider than the Bill does. Clause 3(1) mentions "a person" and Clause 10 mentions "a body corporate". The Minister appears to be drawing a wider definition.

Lord Whitty: A person or someone acting on behalf of a body corporate would have the authority. The body corporate or a person who has been devolved that authority from the landowner, or whoever exercises control over the land, would have the authority.

Lord Northbrook: That does not appear to be in the legislation.

Lord Whitty: It is whoever controls the land. The Committee will know that when a charity owns the land, the board of trustees does not open and close the gate. Someone acts on behalf of a manager of the land and if the manager gives permission for someone to engage in illegal activity, whether illegal hunting or anything else, he or she will be abetting illegal activity. The result of the amendment that was carried, against my earlier advice, envisages there being illegal hunting. Therefore, there should be an offence of knowingly abetting illegal hunting.

The Countess of Mar: The clause states,
	"if he knowingly permits land which belongs to him".
	A tenant does not own the land.

Lord Whitty: There is the matter of what the word "belongs" means. I am informed—noble Lords who have legal training will understand this—that there is an established legal precedent for that, which would include the owner of the lease to the land.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: The Minister said that before dinner we passed an amendment by a substantial majority that allowed registration. He then implied that given that amendment, he believed that I was going rather far in pushing these amendments for the reasons that he has just stated. I accept that abolishing the two subsections in Clause 3 is a substantial step. Could he give the Committee a promise that he will recommend the amendment on registration, through the Government, to the House of Commons? If so, I agree that it is not necessary to move these amendments but, if not, I have no option because I do not know what will happen to registration.

Lord Whitty: The Committee is entitled to a free vote on all these matters. Should the Committee pass this amendment, and no doubt other amendments that will be tabled at later stages, the question of what the totality of the Bill will look like, and whether I or any government Minister will be prepared to recommend it or parts of it, is premature.
	I was making the point that the noble Lord's opening remarks—before he spoke about the specific amendment—and many other comments, suggested that it had not been accepted that there should be some form of heath hunting that had been made illegal, when the act of registration implied that some existing hunting may be deemed illegal and that, therefore, the supplementary offences were needed for anyone who aids and abets by giving permission for illegal activity to take place.
	That is the only point that I am making. A more general point is that if the Committee is serious about asking the House of Commons to think again about the original Bill, one should not delete all the other parts of the Bill that support that approach.

The Earl of Caithness: I have listened with care to what the Minister has said and I agree with him about illegal hunting. I shall return to that when we discuss hare coursing. That needs to be attacked in a stronger way than is being done at the moment. However, when talking about the landowner giving permission the words that he used were exactly those words in Amendment No. 20, tabled by my noble friend Lady Byford. The noble Lord did not use the phrase "knowingly permits", but the words "gives permission for". There is a great difference between those two phrases. If the noble Lord could agree to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Byford, which uses the words "gives permission for", that would solve many of the Committee's concerns.

Baroness Byford: I finally get to the Dispatch Box to say that my noble friend has just said exactly what I wanted. While I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry, I think that mine clarifies the issue better. The Minister has just indicated that it should be clear that that person has given permission. If so, I cannot see why—although at the moment we have not reached my amendment, which is partly the problem—the Government cannot accept my amendment. It definitely clarifies the position quite precisely.
	I shall not go over the ground that other noble Lords have talked about. Certainly, the position regarding tenants is quite right. If, as the noble Countess, Lady Mar, says there is a problem—and the Minister said there is not—I believe, as I am sure do other noble Lords, that the issue should be on the face of the Bill. We are seeking clarity. I do not quite know how to get out of this mess because we are already debating Amendment No. 20, which I support. I would much rather that noble Lords support my amendment, which gives greater clarification and perhaps does not quite go to the lengths that the Minister is accusing various parts of the Chamber of trying to obtain.

Lord Whitty: I have to leave it to noble Lords to sort out which of the amendments they want. However, I would caution the noble Baroness that giving permission without using the term "knowingly" could catch more people than the current clause does.
	As regards clarity, Clause 11(3) spells out the definition of "belongs" and who is caught by it.

Baroness Blatch: Can the Minister tell me how one can give permission without knowingly giving permission?

Lord Whitty: One can give permission for people to come on to the land not knowing that it would be an illegal offence.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: When I tabled the amendments I did not know that we would get into quite such a—I do not know whether "muddle" is the right word to use about them, but confusion.
	First, I thank the Whip on the Government Front Bench for telling me that she thought I was transgressing in my first remarks. But she allowed me to continue none the less. That is a rare privilege and as an ex Chief Whip I realise what a privilege it was. I thank her very much.
	I was particularly grateful during this interesting and wide-ranging debate to have the support of both the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, particularly given the fact that we sat on opposing Benches in the Commons for a great many years. It is particularly pleasant, therefore, to have their support.
	I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, referred to me as a colleague—although, again, we sat on opposite sides in the other place. I entirely understand his concern; but he was very adequately answered by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I should certainly expect that under the registration procedure that we agreed to before dinner, any hunt that behaved in the manner he described would be hauled up immediately, told to get it right, and asked to apologise and to repair any damage done. But I entirely understand the noble Lord's reason for raising that point; I hope that he will be entirely satisfied by future hunts.
	I thank all noble Lords who have supported me. I have sought and received contradictory advice during the course of the past hour but, on balance, I take the Minister's point that we have moved forward on the issue of registration: that if there is registration, there may be illegal hunting. On that basis, I shall not press my amendment to a vote. I should like to hear what my noble friend has to say from the Front Bench, but if registration is not accepted by the Commons, I have no doubt that we shall want to return to the matter when and if the Bill returns to this House. On that basis, and having listened carefully to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 1, line 11, leave out "knowingly permits" and insert "gives permission for"

Baroness Byford: I beg to move Amendment No. 20 and to speak to Amendment No. 22, but I shall not waste the Committee's time. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I tried to get him to follow the line that he indicated earlier. I beg to test the opinion of the Committee.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 127; Not-Contents, 22.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]

Baroness Byford: Is Amendment No. 22 consequential on the amendment that we have just agreed? I need clarification, as the two amendments are linked.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Amendment No. 22 is not consequential; it is grouped. If the noble Baroness would like to move it, it may be that it will not be opposed.

Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 1, line 14, leave out "knowingly permits" and insert "gives permission for"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It may be helpful for Members of the Committee to be aware that the Government accept that, as Amendment No. 3 was pre-empted by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, Amendment No. 24—which was consequential on Amendment No. 3—becomes consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. We therefore consider that it was agreed in the Division on Amendment No. 1.
	I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Transas Group Bill

Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.

Gambling

A message was brought from the Commons that they have amended the order of the House of 10th July appointing a Select Committee to join with a committee of the Lords to consider and report on any clauses of a draft gambling Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown by leaving out the words "within the United Kingdom".

Courts Bill [HL]

Bill returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the Commons amendments be printed.
	House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.